Renzatic on 16/2/2020 at 19:25
Quote Posted by hopper
But everybody here thinks you're a wiseass.
Yeah, pretty much. It's one thing to say you're smart, another thing entirely to actually prove it. If he could actually back up his opinions in an honest debate, he could probably get away with the pretentiousness somewhat. Problem is, he can't. He mostly ad homs his way through an argument, and bail the moment he has to defend his position with actual knowledge of politics, policy, or history.
Starker on 16/2/2020 at 19:48
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
For someone patting themselves on the back about "understanding statistics" you don't seem to understand much about the topic. Do you know how many samples it takes to construct a 90% confidence in a one-tailed T-test without googling it?
I doubt it so go ahead and google it now. I guarantee it's a much smaller number than you think.
First, maybe you should finally start working on reading comprehension, or else quote me where I have patted myself on the back for "understanding statistics". I have taken a statistics class, though, enough to understand what random and representative samples are and why they are important when you're making inferences about a larger population.
Secondly, did you not understand the point of what I quoted? Of course you didn't. He's saying that his sample was smaller
and that it's not representative, not that it's not representative because of the sample size. Not to mention that you were the one bolding the quote about GSS being larger in the first place.
Of course, being proven wrong you go to seek other sources to try to save face. Except this poll doesn't show being left wing is correlated with mental illness or anything like it. It only shows that identifying as Republican is correlated more with reporting having good mental health than either identifying as independent or Democrat. Which is not surprising given who tends to stigmatise mental health issues and blame it on all kinds of societal ills, especially gun violence.
lowenz on 16/2/2020 at 20:06
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
The second point: I've said as much before because both are authoritarian ideologies. What's your point?
"Alt-right" (the national socialism form we call today "Souverainism" ) is nothing more that the classical marxism applied to conservative social schemes and goals to "dialectically" (->marxism=dialectical materialism) legitimate them.
Point is not about "authoritarism", is about "
If marxism is a reductionist pseudotheory alt-right is plain&straight scam".
Nicker on 16/2/2020 at 20:42
Quote Posted by Vae
Thanks for qualifying your cognitive limitations...
It's about time limitations, not cognitive ones, unless you count your amusing assumption that the world owes you a surfeit of quality attention.
Tocky on 16/2/2020 at 21:34
Quote Posted by hopper
But everybody here thinks you're a wiseass.
I don't think he is a wiseass. Quite the opposite. When you eat and regurgitate a turd thinking it's more funny than the original crap taken then that is in no way wise.
Renzatic on 17/2/2020 at 00:27
Bloomberg is pretty much Donald Trump: Democrat Edition. Basically the same thing, but more eloquent and presentable. He won't have as much appeal to the hard right as Trump does, but I won't be surprised if he ends up drawing in a goodly chunk of the moderates.
Starker on 17/2/2020 at 03:39
Oh? Does he also want to abuse the office to personally benefit him and use the Department of Justice to help his friends and persecute his political enemies?
Renzatic on 17/2/2020 at 04:26
He's already flooded the DNC with money, trying to buy his way through exposure to the presidency, using the very Trumpian excuse that "they're using somebody else's money, and those other people expect something from them. Nobody gives you money if they don't expect something, and I don't want to be bought." He even has told his own newspaper not to report any negative news against him or any of the Democrat candidates.
Hell, they've both even switched party allegiances multiple times in the past.
So does that mean he'll be just as bad? Probably not. Unlike Trump, he's a self-made billionaire, hasn't bankrupted dozens of his own businesses, actually possesses previous political experience, isn't trailed by a million tales of his various legal mishaps, lacks his open disregard for the law, and his charities actually give money to their intended source. He does have that going in his favor. Ultimately, he would be a slightly better choice for the presidency than Trump.
But does that mean he's a good choice for the presidency? No. I can't help but feel that the guy is nothing but a smarter, more subtle Trump, one able to market themselves to a larger audience. The same shit that isn't being fixed now will continue to not be fixed under Bloomberg. His only real bonuses is that he won't be as outright an embarrassment, and he doesn't appeal much to the extremes.
Starker on 17/2/2020 at 06:09
Slightly better? You think he intends to cripple your institutions and democratic norms just like Lord Dampnut and put a bunch of incompetents and grifters in charge?