Jump to content

The Slow Painful Death of the Trump Administration


Iznogoud

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah, you are moving the goalposts.  Nothing like what Trump is doing, sorry.

2. And in the USA bigger is better... YUGE FAULTS and YUGE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES are better than small character flaws... got it.

3.His political acumen was bold and inspired, and his strategists won a historic political battle that was intuitive but I won't say brilliant... not until we determine that Russia didn't fix the voting machines :D

 

1.   No, it's just that Trump is much better at it than was Obama.

2.  Correct....the USA would not have a political crisis over a contract for one modest combat supply ship or oiler.

3.  Irrelevant....you wouldn't be spending so much energy on a failed campaign in a foreign country if Trump had lost the election.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 7:26 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Five-Thirty-Eight is a pretty good team.  None of these indicated 100% though.  So presumably the "Princeton Election Consortium" (?) could expected to have the underdog win once every hundred elections.

Also, your rationale would explain why Trump is hated by insiders, but not mainstream liberal types.  

No, none of them indicated 100%, but all of them blew it by huge margins.  The news organizations in those polls have been running 90% negative press coverage of the POTUS.  Looks like to me they are trying to convince everyone they weren't wrong, Trump cheated.  There were outlets that did much better.  

IMO Trump is hated because he is an outsider.  First POTUS in history with Zero government experience.  Two years in, he has corrected the economy, no new wars and not much bad to say.  The insiders don't like outsiders showing everyone you don't need to go through them and get a blessing and tied to the insiders to be POTUS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were just a few accurate pollsters in 2016

U27ULALEHEZBDHNGRJZLNVWSZU.png

I was more accurate than almost all of them. In 2007 I predicted Hillary Clinton would never be POTUS(that's looking very good), in November 2015 I predicted DJT would win, in August 2016 I predicted he would get over 300 electoral votes.  In October 2016 I predicted Trump would win not only his first, but also a second term as POTUS and reshape America.  That's looking pretty good too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carlus Magnus said:

1. No, none of them indicated 100%, but all of them blew it by huge margins. 

2. The news organizations in those polls have been running 90% negative press coverage of the POTUS.  Looks like to me they are trying to convince everyone they weren't wrong,  

3. IMO Trump is hated because he is an outsider.  First POTUS in history with Zero government experience.  Two years in, he has corrected the economy, no new wars and not much bad to say.  The insiders don't like outsiders showing everyone you don't need to go through them and get a blessing and tied to the insiders to be POTUS.

 

1. How so ?  If I say there's a 90% chance of something happening and it doesn't what is my 'margin' on that ?

2. Shame on them !  And to think Trump hasn't done a THING to deserve that coverage !  tsk tsk tsk :D

3. The economy turned around during the last admin... I think people are actually appalled at his vanity, his low morals and the hypocrisy of people who ignore that behaviour because he's ostensibly a Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How so ?  If I say there's a 90% chance of something happening and it doesn't what is my 'margin' on that ?

2. Shame on them !  And to think Trump hasn't done a THING to deserve that coverage !  tsk tsk tsk :D

3. The economy turned around during the last admin... I think people are actually appalled at his vanity, his low morals and the hypocrisy of people who ignore that behaviour because he's ostensibly a Republican.

1.  Predicting Hillary had a 90% chance is failure, YUGE Failure, embarrassing failure, no way around it.

2. Why has Trump deserved 90% Negative coverage ?

3. Negative.  BHO said we'd never see 3% GDP again, he also said those manufacturing jobs weren't coming back.  If you think BHO made the current US economy, you probably need to learn how to code.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carlus Magnus said:

1.  Predicting Hillary had a 90% chance is failure, YUGE Failure, embarrassing failure, no way around it.

2. Why has Trump deserved 90% Negative coverage ?

3. Negative.  BHO said we'd never see 3% GDP again, he also said those manufacturing jobs weren't coming back.  If you think BHO made the current US economy, you probably need to learn how to code.

 

1. Why ?  You don't understand probability.

2. His outrageous statements and behaviour, I suppose.  Do you really have to ask ?

3. Here's a graph.  I just grabbed the first one from a reputable organization.  Definitely on the rise but...

3. 20181020_USC594.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Let me put it to you this way.  If your broker said put all your money on stock HRC it is going to win big, and you went bankrupt because stock HRC tanked who you consider that a good prediction.

2. Giving Trump 90% bad coverage because you don't like his personality is journalistic fraud.

3. Yes, the employment numbers are looking good in the US.  The big change however is GDP growth.  From 2008 through 2016 the US never saw 2% GDP growth and never saw a QTR of 3% GDP growth.

cp-imf-g7-gdp-projections-oct-2017.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carlus Magnus said:

1.  Let me put it to you this way.  If your broker said put all your money on stock HRC it is going to win big, and you went bankrupt because stock HRC tanked who you consider that a good prediction.

2. Giving Trump 90% bad coverage because you don't like his personality is journalistic fraud.

3. Yes, the employment numbers are looking good in the US.  The big change however is GDP growth.  From 2008 through 2016 the US never saw 2% GDP growth and never saw a QTR of 3% GDP growth.

 

1. Right but that's not analagous to what happened.  They said 90% not 100%.

2. Covering his bad behaviour is entirely in bounds.

3. Ok, we haven't seen these deficits or trade wars either but I'm willing to follow that through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Right but that's not analagous to what happened.  They said 90% not 100%.

2. Covering his bad behaviour is entirely in bounds.

3. Ok, we haven't seen these deficits or trade wars either but I'm willing to follow that through.

1) OK, I guess the Toronto Argonauts were a successful team last year:rolleyes:

2) I have no problem with that.  However, Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough.  Focusing on negatives and not giving equal time to Trumps success' as well is painting a fraudulent picture to the President.  CNN's ratings are horrible, people are rejecting this type of propaganda.

3) Yeah, we don't know what the end result is, so we can only say it is good in the US now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carlus Magnus said:

1) OK, I guess the Toronto Argonauts...

2)   Focusing on negatives and not giving equal time to Trumps success' as well is painting a fraudulent picture to the President.   

3) Yeah, we don't know what the end result is, so we can only say it is good in the US now.

1) if someone has a 10% chance of winning, they will win one time in ten

2) Does that apply to FOX?  CNN only says that the economy is great.

3) agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) if someone has a 10% chance of winning, they will win one time in ten

 

Sometimes when people don't understand something for political reasons, there is no way they are going to learn, no matter how many times you explain it to them. That's why we're where we are in terms of doing something to fight climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) if someone has a 10% chance of winning, they will win one time in ten

 

No....what this means is that for a normal data distribution, the chance of winning is one time in ten (10%) for a much larger sample size.  Someone could win more than one in ten early on, or less than one in ten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) if someone has a 10% chance of winning, they will win one time in ten

2) Does that apply to FOX?  CNN only says that the economy is great. 

3) agree

1)  I'm just going to have to agree to disagree.  It's not just that missed the end result, they had Hillary winning in a landslide.  

2) Yes, it applies to all news and journalists.  CNN did commend Trump on the economy, golf clap.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-10-at-7.42.08-PM.png

 

They didn't just F up the end result, they F'd up results in Cities, Counties and States consistently throughout the country.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No....what this means is that for a normal data distribution, the chance of winning is one time in ten (10%) for a much larger sample size.  Someone could win more than one in ten early on, or less than one in ten.

I should have said that the expected number of wins over 10 elections is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carlus Magnus said:

1)  I'm just going to have to agree to disagree.  It's not just that missed the end result, they had Hillary winning in a landslide.  

2) Yes, it applies to all news and journalists.  CNN did commend Trump on the economy, golf clap.

 

 

1) You can say that if you find a poll that predicts numbers or overall percentage not probability.

2) Better than FOX.  As Obama turned the economy around they found controversy in his choice of suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Trump's re-election odds are now generally considered to be much higher than the predictions made for election chances in 2016   As the incumbent with a strong economy, the basic math goes to a solid base of about 40% of voters + a fair portion of independents distributed such that the Electoral College map helps him...again.   Many of the declared Democratic candidates have little chance of even being nominated, let alone defeat Trump in the general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2019 at 10:39 AM, Carlus Magnus said:

There were just a few accurate pollsters in 2016

U27ULALEHEZBDHNGRJZLNVWSZU.png

I was more accurate than almost all of them. In 2007 I predicted Hillary Clinton would never be POTUS(that's looking very good), in November 2015 I predicted DJT would win, in August 2016 I predicted he would get over 300 electoral votes.  In October 2016 I predicted Trump would win not only his first, but also a second term as POTUS and reshape America.  That's looking pretty good too.

 

NBC News tied with SurveyMonkey lol.

It reminds me of when TSN used to have all their broadcasters pick the winners of each NHL playoff series and then Maggie the Macaque would go up on the ladder and spin the wheel with a 50/50 chance of picking either team. So funny to see Maggie ahead of people on the leaderboard.

 

Maggie.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2019 at 12:55 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why ?  You don't understand probability.

He understands polling data quite a bit better than you do.

Predicting a 90% chance of winning in politics isn't just like predicting a "win", it's like predicting a blowout win. Like somewhere in the area of 304 to 227 - Trump's margin of victory. Those pollsters picked a 90% chance of winning and they ended up on the wrong side of a blowout. They weren't just wrong they were "egg all over their faces" wrong. Trump won in places where Hillary didn't even campaign because she thought that she had them sewn up. Then they held a 2 year long investigation because they couldn't believe they were so wrong. That's how wrong they were.

 

Here's a comparison:

If the weatherman says there's a 90% chance of rain Thursday and then it's completely overcast for 12 hours that day, and every time you go out for a ten minute walk in that span you bring an umbrella because it looks like you're likely to get dumped on, but zero drops of rain fall right on top of your house, you don't say "the weatherman was wrong". He was actually right. There really was a 90% chance of rain. It just didn't rain. 

Conversely - if there's not a cloud in sight from 4 in the morning until midnight you say that the weatherman totally blew it, even if a drop of rain fell at 12:01 in the morning. That's because saying there's a 90% chance of rain tells people that when they're out and about that day they should bring their umbrellas, and there's no need to bring sunscreen. IE, the weatherman gave everyone a bum steer. The one drop of rain doesn't give him a 1-for-1. It's an o-fer.

 

Get it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Predicting a 90% chance of winning in politics isn't just like predicting a "win", it's like predicting a blowout win. Like somewhere in the area of 304 to 227 - Trump's margin of victory.  

2. If the weatherman says there's a 90% chance of rain Thursday and then it's completely overcast for 12 hours that day, and every time you go out for a ten minute walk in that span you bring an umbrella because it looks like you're likely to get dumped on, but zero drops of rain fall right on top of your house, you don't say "the weatherman was wrong". He was actually right. There really was a 90% chance of rain. It just didn't rain. 

 

1. You assertion is that it is "like" something.  But it's not.  If there were a seat count prediction or somesuch you could point to that but there was a polling percentage and a likelihood of winning that's it.  Hillary Clinton won the overall vote.

2. Similarly there was a 90% chance of Clinton winning.  Actually it was 75% from the good polling source.  And she didn't win.  What do you expect the polls to show if someone has a 10% chance of winning ?  And what would you say if they actually won ?

I actually know probability theory so you can stop your analogies, they're boring to respond to.  If you like Trump that's your problem but don't try to bend reality around to make up conspiracies.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner/index.html

New York (CNN Business)Deutsche Bank's anti-money laundering specialists once recommended that transactions involving entities controlled by President Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a US agency that investigates financial crimes, according to a new report in the New York Times.

Oh, how DARE the New York Times print news that's fit to print, ie. sourced and reliable concerns about an unethical president who lost a billion in the 80s and 90s and yet remained solvent.  Dirty money would sure explain a lot of why we are burdened with this immoral loser but WHAT ABOUT HER EMAILS ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You assertion is that it is "like" something.  But it's not.  If there were a seat count prediction or somesuch you could point to that but there was a polling percentage and a likelihood of winning that's it.  Hillary Clinton won the overall vote.

2. Similarly there was a 90% chance of Clinton winning.  Actually it was 75% from the good polling source.  And she didn't win.  What do you expect the polls to show if someone has a 10% chance of winning ?  And what would you say if they actually won ?

I actually know probability theory so you can stop your analogies, they're boring to respond to.  If you like Trump that's your problem but don't try to bend reality around to make up conspiracies.  

 

1) Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that other people can't make the connection.

If she just barely lost then the pollsters would still look bad. She got throttled. The pollsters were not close, at all. They look like morons. 

2) Winning with a 10% chance should happen as often as losing with a 90% chance of victory, so I'd say the exact same thing. That being: "I won't put much stock in what those people say in the future".

Did I make conspiracy theories or merely allude to conspiracy theories? Look again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that other people can't make the connection.

If she just barely lost then the pollsters would still look bad. She got throttled. The pollsters were not close, at all. They look like morons.

 

Agreed....most of the conventional polling sources got it wrong because they relied on outdated methods and presumptions, like Trump having to win Florida.   They did not measure or consider other political possibilities and outcomes, so firmly were they wedded to preconceived notions.

This set up an even more dramatic downfall for them...and Hillary Clinton.

Polling firms are just the latest victims of fake news.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner/index.html

New York (CNN Business)Deutsche Bank's anti-money laundering specialists once recommended that transactions involving entities controlled by President Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a US agency that investigates financial crimes, according to a new report in the New York Times.

Oh, how DARE the New York Times print news that's fit to print, ie. sourced and reliable concerns about an unethical president who lost a billion in the 80s and 90s and yet remained solvent.  Dirty money would sure explain a lot of why we are burdened with this immoral loser but WHAT ABOUT HER EMAILS ?  

OMG, if the NYT and/or CNN write something that's anti-Trump you gotta know it's true, because they rarely say anything bad about him and their track record is SOOOO SOLID!

[/sarcasm]

Honestly if CNN/NYT covered everything that was fit to print that would be fine, or if they didn't try to spin everything that comes out that would be fine. But truth be told they would be the epitome of propagandists if it wasn't for CTV.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed....most of the conventional polling sources got it wrong because they relied on outdated methods and presumptions, like Trump having to win Florida.   They did not measure or consider other political possibilities and outcomes, so firmly were they wedded to preconceived notions.

And Hillary losing in the states that she didn't even bother to campaign in lol. LOVE IT!

"But that's not one of the 1,000 reasons why I lost. SCRATCH THAT! Why the election was stolen from meeee!!!!!!" Hehehe.

IMO she lost when she said "basket of deplorables". She alienated some of her own people when she went down to Trump's level, and she literally eradicated any chance of voter apathy on Trump's side. She basically dared them to come out and vote. 

Quote

This set up an even more dramatic downfall for them...and Hillary Clinton.

Polling firms are just the latest victims of fake news

It's weird how fake news spawned the election loss, which spawned the whole investigation, which spawned another two+ years of fake news. 

It's like the movie "Dirty Cop" or whatever with Harvey Keitel, where he just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper. It's painful to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...