Let's make America smart again

[Roger Ramjets]

The parts which remain apply equally to Clinton. Even the strike-through parts

Such misconceptions and lack of rationality is a perfect example of why any attempt to make America smart (again?) is doomed.

Let's just accept the fact that America is never going to get any smarter, and get on with our lives.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sample of one? Are you attempting to say that this is the first or only thread you have participated in, here?

We were talking about evidence that Trump lies more than Hillary. And that is indeed a sample of one. Other claims are other claims. You may not be capable of dealing with different claims separately, or distinguishing the argument from the arguer, but that intellectual limitation doesn't apply to everyone.

Your personal feelings have everything to do with why you refuse to accept this evidence

You'd like that to be so. That way, you don't have to talk about the merits of my argument, which you are manifestly incapable of doing. All you can do is attack me personally. You demonstrate again and again the weakness of your position.

 

[The Shrike]

Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
<emphasis mine>

Lemme guess - I've been drinking the lamestream media Kool-Aid?

Regardless, whether or not Obama's administration has deported the most of any administration, it is clear that they have indeed deported a whole lot of illegal aliens in the last 8 years.

Ironically, this is something that Trump didn't want voters to know (presumably because it didn't play well with his efforts to court white voters) and Clinton didn't want voters to know (presumably because it didn't play well with Latino voters).

 

[Belz...]

I'd accept evidence if it was in fact real evidence. But what's been presented so far isn't real evidence, for reasons I've already given which you can't dispute.

I'd argue that it's weak evidence, considering your objections. But it's hard to say that it isn't evidence since the statements were made, checked and verified.

 

[The Big Dog]

Such misconceptions and lack of rationality is a perfect example of why any attempt to make America smart (again?) is doomed.

Let's just accept the fact that America is never going to get any smarter, and get on with our lives.

arguments by assertion ROCK!

rationality... cripes.

 

[wareyin]

We were talking about evidence that Trump lies more than Hillary. And that is indeed a sample of one. Other claims are other claims. You may not be capable of dealing with different claims separately, or distinguishing the argument from the arguer, but that intellectual limitation doesn't apply to everyone.

You were? Because that's not what you asked. You asked how I could predict your response to other evidence, and I can do so because I've interacted with you before.

You'd like that to be so. That way, you don't have to talk about the merits of my argument, which you are manifestly incapable of doing. All you can do is attack me personally. You demonstrate again and again the weakness of your position.

And argument of "nuh-uh" has no merits, so I, as well as you or anyone else, am of course manifestly incapable of discussing the merits of your argument. I don't know you, I am only able to discuss your arguments (which, when you refuse to make a claim consist of anything but "nuh-uh" aren't really arguments in the sense of debate). I, unlike you, have made no personal attacks, nor disparaged your intelligence or ability. Sadly, I can see that is the only substance to your argument, as you refuse to make any other claim.

 

[The Big Dog]

You were? Because that's not what you asked. You asked how I could predict your response to other evidence, and I can do so because I've interacted with you before.



And argument of "nuh-uh" has no merits, so I, as well as you or anyone else, am of course manifestly incapable of discussing the merits of your argument. I don't know you, I am only able to discuss your arguments (which, when you refuse to make a claim consist of anything but "nuh-uh" aren't really arguments in the sense of debate). I, unlike you, have made no personal attacks, nor disparaged your intelligence or ability. Sadly, I can see that is the only substance to your argument, as you refuse to make any other claim.

dude... just stop....

 

[wareyin]

I'd argue that it's weak evidence, considering your objections. But it's hard to say that it isn't evidence since the statements were made, checked and verified.

Indeed, it is evidence that Politifact was able to collect more lies by Trump, in a far shorter time, than lies by Hillary. Of course, some have already shown that there is no evidence that they would accept for frequency of lies, since any sample would not be absolutely perfect.

 

[wareyin]

dude... just stop....

Kicking someone when they are down is unseemly, yes. I'll wait til one of you guys comes up with some evidence that Trump lies less often. Hopefully, I will not die of old age before such evidence exists.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd argue that it's weak evidence, considering your objections. But it's hard to say that it isn't evidence since the statements were made, checked and verified.

No, it's not evidence at all of any comparative difference in lying rates. It's evidence that both candidates lie, but that's the extent of it. With no sampling control, you could get samples ranging from 0% lies to 100% lies from the same population.

 

[applecorped]

Kicking someone when they are down is unseemly, yes. I'll wait til one of you guys comes up with some evidence that Trump lies less often. Hopefully, I will not die of old age before such evidence exists.

Time well spent

 

[wareyin]

No, it's not evidence at all of any comparative difference in lying rates. It's evidence that both candidates lie, but that's the extent of it. With no sampling control, you could get samples ranging from 0% lies to 100% lies from the same population.

It is evidence that, in their samples, Trump lies 3 times as much. You dispute that their samples are unbiased, but you have no better samples. You have copied my suggestion for a possibly less biased sample, but refused to follow up on it. So, we are left with this as being evidence, perhaps weak evidence, yes, but evidence that conservatives are unable or unwilling to disprove.

 

[wareyin]

Time well spent

Yes, my time this evening was quite well spent, thank you.

Of course, I would have enjoyed discussing the situation with an opponent who I could respect, who could actually make a claim or defend a point, but you can't always get what you want.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is evidence that, in their samples, Trump lies 3 times as much. You dispute that their samples are unbiased, but you have no better samples.

I don't need a better sample. All I need to do is show that their sample isn't reliable. And it isn't. You have no argument that it is. That should be the end of the story, but for some reason you want to pretend it isn't.

You have copied my suggestion for a possibly less biased sample, but refused to follow up on it.

Of course I have. It's too much work, to prove a claim I never made.

Why won't you do it?

 

[wareyin]

I don't need a better sample. All I need to do is show that their sample isn't reliable. And it isn't. You have no argument that it is. That should be the end of the story, but for some reason you want to pretend it isn't.

Not reliable? Are you now claiming that what Politifact claims is a lie is not a lie? What lengths people will go to in order to not question their own biases.

Of course I have. It's too much work, to prove a claim I never made.

Why won't you do it?

You have done the work? Or it's too much work to do?

 

[Belz...]

Not reliable? Are you now claiming that what Politifact claims is a lie is not a lie?

No he's saying that biased sampling could have specifically picked true statements by Clinton and false statements by Trump. He also admits that there's basically no way to ensure an unbiased sample.

 

[wareyin]

No he's saying that biased sampling could have specifically picked true statements by Clinton and false statements by Trump. He also admits that there's basically no way to ensure an unbiased sample.

In other words, having his cake and eating it, too. He rejects this evidence because it is potentially biased, but also claims that it is impossible to ensure an unbiased sample. As I said before, it's just an excuse to ignore evidence that would challenge his bias.

 

[Belz...]

In other words, having his cake and eating it, too. He rejects this evidence because it is potentially biased, but also claims that it is impossible to ensure an unbiased sample. As I said before, it's just an excuse to ignore evidence that would challenge his bias.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think he just says that you can't draw conclusions from such endeavours one way or another. I don't think that's being hypocritical, wareyin.

 

[wareyin]

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think he just says that you can't draw conclusions from such endeavours one way or another. I don't think that's being hypocritical, wareyin.

By this logic, it is impossible to show that any person is more dishonest or honest than any other person, so it's all a wash. That stance, coming from someone who argued for pages (without ever providing evidence at all) that Obama is a thin skinned narcissist, is hypocritical. Further, when one never challenges the assertions that Clinton lies, but only the assertions that Trump lies, the implication that one believes the claim that Clinton lies and disbelieves the claim that Trump lies is obvious.

 

[Belz...]

By this logic, it is impossible to show that any person is more dishonest or honest than any other person, so it's all a wash.

Yeah but I can see his point.

That stance, coming from someone who argued for pages (without ever providing evidence at all) that Obama is a thin skinned narcissist, is hypocritical.

Here you have a point, however. If it's impossible to tell how much one lies no matter what your sample is, it should follow that you can't tell who's thin-skinned either, and I do remember that thread.