Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 71
Thanks Tree52Thanks

Thread: Bill Clinton: "Norms of what you can do to someone against their will have changed"

  1. #61
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28,236
    Thanks
    7182

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    It's not a lie -- it's just imprecise language. It's like if someone asks you how old your kid is and you say 3 years old, when in fact the kid is 3 years and nine weeks old, that's not a lie... it's simply an answer rounded to the nearest year. We do this all the time. If I were asked how long my commute is, I might say 20 miles, instead of "about 20 miles," even if it's actually 19.8 miles, because that's how people talk, not because I'm a liar. I think you've allowed a game of political "gotcha" to get the better of you here.
    Try that next time you make a mortgage payment, pay a credit card bill, or even going through the check out line.

    Just tell em it's "almost" the right amount of money.

    I'm sure they'll let you slide...NOT!

  2. #62
    Member Arkady's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,334
    Thanks
    3279

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    And Hillary was favored to win, right up until election day.
    Yes -- polls were showing her ahead.

    How did she manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
    Well, as you'll recall, Trump's fellow Republican, James Comey, who had earlier tried to destroy Clinton's campaign by using a big press event as an opportunity to trash her personally, even as he admitted there was no basis for indictment, intervened in the election again, with just days to go, by speculating, entirely baselessly, that some emails on a former Congress member's laptop might contain something incriminating Clinton. That gave the corporate media an excuse to spend the final week of the campaign doing negative coverage for Clinton, depressing her poll numbers several points, putting the election close enough that Trump, with the benefit of the effective "home field advantage" Republicans get in the Electoral College, could manage a minority win.

    It's one of the biggest upsets in election history.
    Was it?

    But, Nate Silver is NEVER wrong!
    What makes you think that? I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Certainly I can't imagine anyone who actually followed Silver's work, which mostly is in the field of sports statistics, would have said that, since by nature the team he gives the lower probability of winning a game is going to be victorious a significant minority of the time.

    Nate Silver's final forecast gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4% chance of victory. Was that wrong? Well, in one sense, any prediction he might make other than saying that one or the other had a 100% chance of victory would be wrong, since ultimately one candidate or another was going to 100% win. If Clinton had won, then in the same sense he'd have been wrong to say Trump had a 28.6% chance, when in fact it was 0. But that's not a very sensible way to think about probabilities.

    Instead, think of it the way you would if this were a sporting event. Let's say an announcer told you that an NFL kicker, lined up for a 48-yard-long field goal, had a 71.4% chance of hitting it.... and then the kicker missed. Would you say the announcer got it wrong? What if, in fact, NFL kickers do tend to hit 71.4% of their kicks from that distance? Wouldn't that, then, have been a pretty accurate estimate of the odds, even if that particular kicker ended hitting 100% or 0% of that particular kick?

    She was going to "crush his nuts"!
    Who are you quoting? I Googled "crush his nuts" and "Hillary Clinton" and the first Google result was to that post you just made, so it does not seem to have been a common prediction at the time.

    How many times did we hear those?
    In my case, once, just now, from you. How about you?
    Last edited by Arkady; 13th June 2018 at 12:19 PM.

  3. #63
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,821
    Thanks
    37366

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Glad you agree with me.

    It's not 3 million, it's ABOUT 3 million.

    Or ALMOST 3 million.

    Or NEARLY 3 million.

    But, definitely not 3 million.

    It took a long time to kill that lie.
    No one was lying. Let's review the post you were responding to:
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    We got one decent one last time, but despite her getting about three million more votes than her opponent, our political elite, embodied by members of the Electoral College, chose to install Trump in the presidency, anyway.
    You just proved that the thing you said was wrong, wasn't wrong. Thanks for agreeing with me.

  4. #64
    Member Arkady's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,334
    Thanks
    3279

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Try that next time you make a mortgage payment, pay a credit card bill, or even going through the check out line.

    Just tell em it's "almost" the right amount of money.

    I'm sure they'll let you slide...NOT!
    Now, tell me how you'd react if we simply flip the politics around on this. Let's say, for example, that Trump were to justify his travel ban policy by pointing out that Muslim terrorists killed three thousand people on 9/11. Would you say Trump was lying because, in fact, it was a little less than three thousand?

    No need to answer that. We both know you wouldn't. In fact, we both know that if a liberal were to be so absurdly petty as to call Trump a liar on the basis of that, you'd rightly point out the stupidity of that attack. You'd see, in that case, what a brain-dead attempt at political "gotcha" it was. But that's what partisan politics can do to a person.... the same attack he'd scoff at if the politics were arranged one way, he'll eagerly engage in when they're arranged the other way.
    Last edited by Arkady; 13th June 2018 at 12:20 PM.

  5. #65
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28,236
    Thanks
    7182

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Yes -- polls were showing her ahead.



    Well, as you'll recall, Trump's fellow Republican, James Comey, who had earlier tried to destroy Clinton's campaign by using a big press event as an opportunity to trash her personally, even as he admitted there was no basis for indictment, intervened in the election again, with just days to go, by speculating, entirely baselessly, that some emails on a former Congress member's laptop might contain something incriminating Clinton. That gave the corporate media an excuse to spend the final week of the campaign doing negative coverage for Clinton, depressing her poll numbers several points, putting the election close enough that Trump, with the benefit of the effective "home field advantage" Republicans get in the Electoral College, could manage a minority win.



    Was it?



    What makes you think that? I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Nate Silver's final forecast gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4% chance of victory. Was that wrong? Well, in one sense, any prediction he might make other than saying that one or the other had a 100% chance of victory would be wrong, since ultimately one candidate or another was going to 100% win. If Clinton had won, then in the same sense he'd have been wrong to say Trump had a 28.6% chance, when in fact it was 0. But that's not a very sensible way to think about probabilities.

    Instead, think of it the way you would if this were a sporting event. Let's say an announcer told you that an NFL kicker, lined up for a 48-yard-long field goal, had a 71.4% chance of hitting it.... and then the kicker missed. Would you say the announcer got it wrong? What if, in fact, NFL kickers do tend to hit 71.4% of their kicks from that distance? Wouldn't that, then, have been a pretty accurate estimate of the odds, even if that particular kicker ended hitting 100% or 0% of that particular kick?



    Who are you quoting? I Google "crush his nuts" and "Hillary Clinton" and the first Google result was to that post you just made, so it does not seem to have been a common prediction at the time.



    In my case, once, just now, from you. How about you?
    Yes, it was one of the biggest upsets in election history.

    "Crush his nuts" was said many, many times on this forum.

    You shoulda been here leading up to the election.

    You woulda seen it.

    We also heard over and over about how Nate Silver had never been wrong.

  6. #66
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28,236
    Thanks
    7182

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    No one was lying. Let's review the post you were responding to: You just proved that the thing you said was wrong, wasn't wrong. Thanks for agreeing with me.
    You're welcome.

    Glad we both agree it wasn't "3 million".

    It took a long time to kill THAT lie, but I think it's finally receding...

  7. #67
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28,236
    Thanks
    7182

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Now, tell me how you're react if we simply flip the politics around on this. Let's say, for example, that Trump were to justify his travel ban policy by pointing out that Muslim terrorists killed three thousand people on 9/11. Would you say Trump was lying because, in fact, it was a little less than three thousand?

    No need to answer that. We both know you wouldn't. In fact, we both know that if a liberal were to be so absurdly petty as to call Trump a liar on the basis of that, you'd rightly point out the stupidity of that attack. You'd see, in that case, what a brain-dead attempt at political "gotcha" it was. But that's what partisan politics can do to a person.... the same attack he'd scoff at if the politics were arranged one way, he'll eagerly engage in when they're arranged the other way.
    Glad to hear that you know what I think and what I'd do.

    Is it your week to be Miss Cleo?

    I guess there's no need for further comment from me...

  8. #68
    DEEP STATE CEO Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    9,946
    Thanks
    7431

    From
    SPECTRE HQ
    Smh
    Thanks from Rasselas

  9. #69
    Member Arkady's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,334
    Thanks
    3279

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Yes, it was one of the biggest upsets in election history.
    By what standards? I would have thought the biggest upsets to be ones where expectations were for a landslide in one direction and things actually went the other way. In the case of the Clinton/Trump election, I didn't know anyone who expected a landslide. There hadn't been a true landslide in many cycles, and the final polling average only had Clinton up by 3.2 points, which is about the size of the margin of error of polls. I expected a very close contest and that's exactly what we got, with Clinton beating Trump by about three million votes in the popular vote, while Trump took the electoral college by way of a fraction of a percentage lead in three key states.

    "Crush his nuts" was said many, many times on this forum.
    I wasn't around, so I can't say. But I certainly never saw it until just today, from you.

    We also heard over and over about how Nate Silver had never been wrong.
    Since Silver has worked for many years doing sports stats, try to think of it in those terms. Let's say Silver claims that Lebron James has a 70% chance of making a free throw. If you watch James shoot ten free throw shots and he misses three, will you say Silver was wrong three times? I wouldn't, because that's not how probabilities work. In fact, if James missed three shots of out ten, that would suggest Silver was right about his probability of hitting each shot.

    In the same sense, if Silver makes ten different predictions of a 70% chance of a politician winning an election, and three of those times the politician he picked loses, does that mean he was wrong three times? I wouldn't say so, since, again, that's not how probabilities work. Rather, we'd fully expect three of the favored candidate to lose, if Silver was right about the chances. If, instead, the candidate he said had the better chance won every single time, THEN we'd say Silver was wrong, because then he would be underestimating the chances of victory.

    Now, I haven't gone back to see how accurate Silver is overall, by checking the percentage he ascribes to all candidates and seeing how the actual elections tend to turn out. Does he systematically overestimate or underestimate the probable winner's probability? No clue. But, obviously, taking a one-election snapshot and arguing it shows Silver was wrong, when he states his predictions in probability figures, makes no more sense than saying he's wrong about a 70% free-throw shooter if we see the guy miss.

  10. #70
    Member Arkady's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,334
    Thanks
    3279

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Glad to hear that you know what I think and what I'd do.
    What do you think you'd do in that case? Would you call Trump a liar? Would you defend a liberal for calling his statement a lie?

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 5th December 2017, 07:38 AM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11th April 2016, 07:30 PM
  3. Replies: 178
    Last Post: 4th January 2016, 04:10 AM
  4. Bill Clinton on aliens visiting Earth: "Wouldn't be surprised"
    By meridian5455 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 6th April 2014, 06:12 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th May 2013, 05:37 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed