U.S. Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.

surface

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
16,224
Lumeer is one weird dude, to this day I have no idea whether he's left or right wing.
Indeed. If I recall vaguely, he did say he was a trump supporter once based on some specific reasons and then became non-supporter based on some other specific reasons and then after biden win, he kind of wished he should have stayed trump supporter. I suspect he thinks it is lends him genuine credibility as he was ex-trump supporter once.
 

Kieppie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
4,351
Now, you know very well your written language is poor. You need correction on a regular basis. You also know, due to having it demonstrated today, that your maths is poor, or you are ignorant of the basic concepts. That is a given.
There is nothing wrong with my maths. Kinda funny that you think basic primary school arithmetic has any bearing on actual math competency? Wait should I use baring instead? I guess my language skills are on par with yours.

Things scudscker had said about Kieppe:
- he is not good at maths
- he is not good at English

Things Kieppe has said about scudsucker:
- he is a racist
- he has no science or maths background
So we're both wrong on both accounts? Who would have guessed.

But your basis for calling me a racist is purely because you have convinced yourself of something that is not true, and something that I have never shown any measure of support for.
This is dishonest, both factually and intellectually.
You know very well you are comparing two very different populations, because I have told you this. You are comparing apples and oranges, and still doubling down.
If you had chosen to compare Republican voters to Democratic voters it would have been an honest comparison.
No. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. I said statistically speaking.
My intention was never to prove or disprove which party has the most racist members, but you know this.

* subscribe. See comment above about your language skills.
See first paragraph.

For what it is worth, CRT is not a policy anyway - a hint is in the name, third letter of the acronym stands for "theory". It is a set of ideas, not a group of Democratic Party policies.
They implement elements of the theory in their policies. This should be obvious.

I hope you had some copium with your coke.
Had a few beers and a nice G&T thanks.

I'm going to help you out here with something I typed on my phone (hence many minor edits) while enjoying a nice cold beer. I honestly hope it will help you understand where you went wrong.

Population error:

By counting 117,800 white supremacists, who are presumably racist and comparing that number to Democratic voters (you claim without much evidence that there at 78.87 million of these voters) all you have proven is that there are more Democratic voters than white supremacists. That is all.
The evidence was provided, but seems that you did not read the linked source. No surprise.
The numbers serves as a base to compare from.

You are conflating the two population groups. We can probably agree that around 100% of white supremacists are indeed racist.
We cannot apply that number to a population of Democratic voters because you have not shown any evidence for any racists in the population of Democratic voters. See, this is how statistics and maths works: you compare a known fraction of a population to another known population
Yes that is a safe assumption.
And that is what I did.

Even if you had done this, you would have been able to state only one of the following propositions because that is all you tested for:

Either,
A) the proportion of racists in the population of Democratic voters is LESS than the proportion of racists in various named white supremacist groups, or
B) the proportion of racists in the population of Democratic voters is MORE than the proportion of racists in various named white supremacist groups.

What you are trying to present is a different proposition, one that you have not backed up.
Wrong. That was not what I tested for. I just highlighted how small the percentage of Democrat voters that believe in CRT & ID need to be to equal the amount of White supremacists. That percentage is so small it is basically negligible.

Category error:

You have not shown any evidence that Critical Race Theory and Identity Politics are inherently racist. You have stated as much, but without supporting evidence.
It is, but that is a different discussion.

You also appear to think that only white supremacists on the right can be racist, while any of the population of Democratic voters can justifiably be accused.
Incorrect. Conservatives are accused without evidence of being White Supremacists or just sympathetic to them. So I correctly stated "Statistically speaking I am more likely to be correct than someone claiming a conservative is a white supremacist."

Conflation error:

You constantly flip between "belief amongst the population of Democratic voters in CRT and/or IP" as racist, and decrying "CRT/IP as Democratic Party policies"
This is probably unintentional, but you need to be aware that they are very different things.
You need belief to believe the theory yes. That is a step beyond just supporting the implemented policies without understanding their roots.

You also conflate white supremacist bodies with the entire right wing, by doing so implying that there are "only" 117,800 "bad apples" in the entirety of US right wing politics.
This is an absurdity, and I notice you choose not to use left wing extremists for your opposing numbers, instead deciding to present the entirety of the population of Democratic voters.
This is clearly dishonest. On the one hand you want to describe white supremacists - and only white supremacists - as racist. On the other, you want to suggest that the majority of left leaning people are racist.
Incorrect. White supremacists are used as a catch all boogie man. I never made any assertion as to how many bad apples there are in the different parties. Other extremists groups were not part of the initial conversation.
Again incorrect I never said anything about the majority of left leaning people.

You often switch terminology between white supremacists and racists (only, of course, those on the right) in order to muddy the waters, no doubt so you can use the white supremacist angle to either raise a strawman or to suggest I am strawmanning. This is dishonest.
Again wrong. White supremacists was the topic of the conversation, there was no muddying the water.

Backtracking:

When you claimed, statistically as a left leaning person I was more likely to be racist, you then presented a figure that implies, inaccurately, that at least 1.27% of the population of Democratic voters are in fact racist.
The figure is accurate and no that is NOT what I said.
This does not square with your claim in post
Where you state

Is 1.27% - a number, I might add, derived from exceptionally dishonest maths - a large number? Is it a proportion of the general left population that allows you to reasonably assert that I am racist?
Is it a bigger or smaller number than the proportion of the population of (n=1) Hannity spouting white supremacist bigotry and thus showing that 100% of Hannity is a white supremacist?

It squares perfectly with what I said and there was no dishonest math involved.
The actual number, even using inflated values was 0,149%. I deliberately added basically a factor of 10 to show how small it is.
This long spiel is just to show you only need 1 out of every 671 Democrats to believe in CRT & ID to have the same amount of racists as there are white supremacists.
In other words the probability is quite high even if you were to factor in the varying levels of understanding of the actual theory.
Your Hannity line is just silly FYI.

Maths is indeed hard, but not that hard.
Again this is hardly math it's basic arithmetic. Non linear control systems is hard math. Heat transfer is hard math. CFD is hard math.

TLDR I'm pleasantly surprised to finally get a non troll post from you. :thumbsup:
 

scudsucker

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
8,364
I see you are really struggling with both language and maths. Perhaps a little too much copium in that last triple copium & coke?

No. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. I said statistically speaking.
My intention was never to prove ...
What a surprise.
Yes that is a safe assumption.
And that is what I did.
Nope. You did the opposite. I understand maths is hard for you, and this type of comparison is probably something you did not start learning until fairly recently, but you are utterly and totally wrong. Sorry.

You have not addressed your major fallacy: you want to choose random numbers made up of totals of your chosen right wing racist groups to somehow show that all Democratic voters somehow contain an equal or greater number of racists. It is ludicrous nonsense. You still have not demonstrated the proportion of "racist" Democratic voters; in fact you have no idea and you are blustering.

It is roughly equivalent to stating an obviously false claim, eg: some domesticated rabbits are white. Therefore in the wild population, there is an equivalent number of white rabbits.

No one denies that there are a number of feral white rabbits but there is no close connection between the number of domesticated rabbits and feral white rabbits & the ratio of feral white rabbits to the usual brown/grey wild rabbits, for a large number of reasons.

Your entire theory is based on a mathematical nonsense, which you have convinced yourself is true.

The rest of your fallacious post is not worth responding to; if you can't grasp the basics, I am not going to try to help you further.
 
Last edited:

Kieppie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
4,351
I see you are really struggling with both language and maths. Perhaps a little too much copium in that last triple copium & coke?
What a suprise.
Nope. You did the opposite. I understand maths is hard for you, and this type of comparison is probably something you did not start learning until fairly recently, but you are utterly and totally wrong. Sorry.
Don't drink coke, but ok.
Unfortunately for you math is not hard for me and the clue was in the second last sentence. Pointless trying to argue this with you though.
As mentioned your language skill is about the same. I hope it's not your first language?

You have not addressed your major fallacy: you want to choose random numbers made up of totals of your chosen right wing racist groups to somehow show that all Democratic voters somehow contain an equal or greater number. It is ludicrous nonsense.
It's not random numbers. It's all sourced where possible and using the maximum of the other sets when there aren't any available. Blame SPLC for their crappy investigations. If you can't understand probability then that's your problem.

It is roughly equivalent to stating an obviously false claim, eg: some domesticated rabbits are white. Therefore in the wild population, there is an equivalent number of white rabbits.
No one denies that there are a number of feral white rabbits but there is no connection between the number of domesticated rabbits and feral white rabbits, for a large number of reasons.
Your entire theory is based on a mathematical nonsense, which you have convinced yourself is true.
The rest of your fallacious post is not worth responding to; if you can't grasp the basics, I am not going to try to help you further.
No not similar at all. So lets agree to disagree.
 

scudsucker

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
8,364
Unfortunately for you math is not hard for me
As you apparently think arithmetic is a different branch of something(?) and not part of the science of Mathematics, yes, I do think it is hard for you.

You have amply displayed in the last two days fundamental flaws in your understanding of how mathematical comparisons work, so, yes, again, I do think it is hard for you.
Pointless trying to argue this with you though.
As mentioned your language skill is about the same. I hope it's not your first language?
You are a second language speaker, so I should go easy on you.
If you can't understand probability then that's your problem.
But here we have you completely conflating number of people in subset population A with percentage of people in population B as a valid statistical construct, without caring about the population C which contains the subset A.

Sorry Kiepie. It is not.
No not similar at all. So lets agree to disagree.
If that is an admission of defeat, I'll take it.

Go pour another double copium... on the rocks, I suppose.
 
Last edited:

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
46,185
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/us/politics/republicans-donations-trump-defector.html

The political arm of House Republicans is deploying a prechecked box to enroll donors into repeating monthly donations — and using ominous language to warn them of the consequences if they opt out: “If you UNCHECK this box, we will have to tell Trump you’re a DEFECTOR.”

I see that they've changed it now.

View attachment 1049859

Abandon President Trump... What...
@The_Right_Honourable_Brit will be very disturbed. He doesn't like people making lists.
 

Kieppie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
4,351
As you apparently think arithmetic is a different branch of something(?) and not part of the science of Mathematics, yes, I do think it is hard for you.
Trying to play word games instead of focusing on the actual point. No surprise. No I said it is trivial it might as well be ignored. Ie no one can possibly find it hard nor confusing. Hopefully you have some tertiary math background else this is just childish.

You have amply displayed in the last two days fundamental flaws in your understanding of how mathematical comparisons work, so, yes, again, I do think it is hard for you.
Nothing wrong with the math not the comparison. The fault lies with what you believe I was trying to prove.

You are a second language speaker, so I should go easy on you.
So second language and basically on par with you. Kudus to you?

But here we have you completely conflating number of people in population A with percentage of people in population B as a valid statistical construct.
Sorry Kiepie. It is not.
No that's again just your misunderstanding. The two populations are independent So it can, in fact, be apples and oranges and still be valid.

If that is an admission of defeat, I'll take it.
Go pour another double copium... on the rocks, I suppose.
Sure... lets go with that. It'll avoid discussing this ad infinitum. Only so much that I'll do to alleviate boredom.

Ps thanks again for showing you're not just a troll or Tyson replacement. I expect similar replies in the future.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
46,185
He's a known liar who lies to attract an audience of white supremacists.

How else would you categorise this behaviour? Of course he is espousing white supremacist ideas, and... wait for it, just like your support of Trump makes you a Trumpist, his support of white supremacist garbage makes him a white supremacist sympathiser.

I would expect you to get this concept, as you have accused me of being racist based on nothing but the fact I am left leaning.
Odd how white nationalists keep getting outed as working for Carlson. Just gosh darn bad luck!


And he's pretty keen on spouting white nationalist propaganda.


 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
46,185
Sorry he triggers you. Sometimes hearing the truth is difficult.

Maybe look at it again. See the connections. Learn the truths.

This is shocking though.




I guess it must be racism.
So what are Shapiro's views on why this is the case, hmm? Does he blame 'black culture', or claim black people inherently make bad life choices, as he's done elsewhere?

Is it a fair bet that he doesn't engage with any of the research on this, like with every other topic he decides he's correct on?

Does he grapple with any of the realities, as examined in this piece?


Changing topics now? I don't know the messenger that well but this specific message on BLM hits the truth. I will be watching more of his videos, it does not mean that I will agree with everything he says.
Give this a read.

 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
88,396
Indeed. If I recall vaguely, he did say he was a trump supporter once based on some specific reasons and then became non-supporter based on some other specific reasons and then after biden win, he kind of wished he should have stayed trump supporter. I suspect he thinks it is lends him genuine credibility as he was ex-trump supporter once.

Nothing wrong with changing your views, same goes for continuously swapping between parties.
 

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
22,454
So what are Shapiro's views on why this is the case, hmm? Does he blame 'black culture', or claim black people inherently make bad life choices, as he's done elsewhere?

Is it a fair bet that he doesn't engage with any of the research on this, like with every other topic he decides he's correct on?

Does he grapple with any of the realities, as examined in this piece?



Give this a read.

Check the video and then answer some of the questions raised. If you can. I see you still want to blame history but as pointed out things are getting worse now and the history scapegoat is wearing thin.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
25,815
So what are Shapiro's views on why this is the case, hmm? Does he blame 'black culture', or claim black people inherently make bad life choices, as he's done elsewhere?

Is it a fair bet that he doesn't engage with any of the research on this, like with every other topic he decides he's correct on?

Does he grapple with any of the realities, as examined in this piece?



Give this a read.

Criticizes Shapiro of not engaging with research. But then post a link to a leftie opinion peace full of emotionalpleading. Lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top