Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Minoosh]

It bothers me that she's been strategic in one breathe but idealistic in the next with no rhyme or reason.

It's "We have to do the right thing no matter the cost!" out of one side of her mouth and "We have to be smart and play the game" out of the other.

I don't think those statements are mutually exclusive. Not binary. More like a spectrum. Both of those sentiments can be in play, even in the same person. They almost have to be, IMO. Nancy's mind was made up. Then it changed. Because she thought he had crossed a line. Do you agree Trump was trying to get Ukraine to influence the 2020 election? That's a pretty big thing to just ignore.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Please stop asking me if I understand the Orange Man is Bad.

Yes the Orange Man is bad. Yes the Orange Man is doing bad things.

None of that magically makes what the Dems are doing effective.

History is not going to magically go our way just because that's how it would work in a fair world.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's answering a very different question to the one you were asked.

Unless your argument is that it's literally impossible to have any indication of how an election might go and therefore the only reasonable approach is for everybody to treat every possibility as equally probable, then you presumably feel that the acquisition of data is possible. It seems that you don't believe polls can fulfil that function, so I'm curious as to what you feel is.

Why do you think you need predictive data on what candidate will win an election? What use do you make of that information? Unless you are a party employee tasked with campaign strategy, laying out plans for the candidate before the election. Are you? Is anybody here on this messageboard? Christ, people, get over yourselves: we're just individuals, many of whom aren't even American or voters. You don't need to have a data model of what percentage of persons polled in a shopping mall in Kansas favor Candiate Froot Loops over Candidate Cocoa Puffs! Vote for the man/woman/fish monster you think is the best for the job. You aren't charged with guessing the future, you aren't responsible for toting up the probabilities, and you aren't going to win a million bucks from JREF even if you guess correctly.

Sometimes I think too many posters devote all of their intellectual activity to trying to win arguments on the internet. It's just chat, people. Nobody's expecting any one of us to have The Answers. If you do happen to have The Answers, don't waste them here, sell them to the people who actually matter for a tidy profit, then come here to show photos of what you bought.

 

[JoeMorgue]

TragicMonkey why does your "It doesn't matter because it's just an internet discussion and nobody can know for sure" thing only work one way?

People are acting like I'm arguing that things aren't going well to some greater level then people are arguing that no everything is going great and therefore I have to defend it more.

How is "Well nobody knows for sure and it's just an internet discussion so it doesn't matter anyway" a retort to one and not the other?

 

[TragicMonkey]

TragicMonkey why does your "It doesn't matter because it's just an internet discussion and nobody can know for sure" thing only work one way?

That's not what I said, so it's not "my thing".

People are acting like I'm arguing that things aren't going well to some greater level then people are arguing that no everything is going great and therefore I have to defend it more.

I have no idea which people you're talking about, but honestly based on your posting history I don't expect your characterization of other people's remarks to be accurate. I have noted a tendency to hyperbole in that area.

How is "Well nobody knows for sure and it's just an internet discussion so it doesn't matter anyway" a retort to one and not the other?

Again, not what I said. I simply dispute the value of polls as metrics for determining any action anybody on this board would actually take. If you were the candidate running then polls might be of value (or not, as their value depends entirely on the sample and the methodology). But the rest of us should vote for the candidate we think is the best one for the job. Poll data is functionally useless for us.

Would you diagnose your own illness based on the statistics of that illness you read in a book? One study showed that 1 in 3 men will get prostate cancer. Knowing that number, do you assume your next stomachache is prostate cancer spread to the bowels?

Just because a piece of data exists doesn't mean it's relevant to you and it must be utilized!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just because a piece of data exists doesn't mean it's relevant to you and it must be utilized!

For like the third or four time now, so where are you and others getting your data that the Impeachment Process is going great coming from then?

"I don't trust the polls." Fine, sure, whatever. Then where are you getting your data from?

I introduce evidence that impeachment isn't working, it's rejected as "Well that data isn't 1,000,000,000 percent metaphysically absolutely definitive, so we can ignore it" while all the "Impeachment is going great! Trump's doomed!" crowd can can offer is gut feelings and hope.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For like the third or four time now, so where are you and others getting your data that the Impeachment Process is going great coming from then?

And again you demonstrate what I said above about your posting habits. Where on earth did I ever say anything even close to "the impeachment process is going great"?

I think you'll find conversation a lot easier if you listen to what people actually say rather than listen to the versions of them you've constructed in your head!

"I don't trust the polls." Fine, sure, whatever. Then where are you getting your data from?

I introduce evidence that impeachment isn't working, it's rejected as "Well that data isn't 1,000,000,000 percent metaphysically absolutely definitive, so we can ignore it" while all the "Impeachment is going great! Trump's doomed!" crowd can can offer is gut feelings and hope.

Again, what data? I don't have any data, and never claimed to. I haven't said a single thing even close to what you apparently think I've said. You have no idea what I think about the impeachment and how it's going. Whose posts are you reading?

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Head desk*

So nobody knows anything, everyone is just talking at random with no information to draw from, but I'm the only one who needs to get motherhenned over it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

*Head desk*

So nobody knows anything, everyone is just talking at random with no information to draw from, but I'm the only one who needs to get motherhenned over it.

It's "motherhenning" to expect that when you directly address me that you don't attribute other people's remarks to me?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why do you think you need predictive data on what candidate will win an election? What use do you make of that information? Unless you are a party employee tasked with campaign strategy, laying out plans for the candidate before the election. Are you? Is anybody here on this messageboard? Christ, people, get over yourselves: we're just individuals, many of whom aren't even American or voters. You don't need to have a data model of what percentage of persons polled in a shopping mall in Kansas favor Candiate Froot Loops over Candidate Cocoa Puffs! Vote for the man/woman/fish monster you think is the best for the job. You aren't charged with guessing the future, you aren't responsible for toting up the probabilities, and you aren't going to win a million bucks from JREF even if you guess correctly.

Sometimes I think too many posters devote all of their intellectual activity to trying to win arguments on the internet. It's just chat, people. Nobody's expecting any one of us to have The Answers. If you do happen to have The Answers, don't waste them here, sell them to the people who actually matter for a tidy profit, then come here to show photos of what you bought.

This weird rant has nothing to do with what I said, what I think, or what you were asked.

I think you'll find conversation a lot easier if you listen to what people actually say rather than listen to the versions of them you've constructed in your head!

Amen.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sometimes I think too many posters devote all of their intellectual activity to trying to win arguments on the internet.

Well, we are "posters" after all. it is kind of the point of the activity.


The only danger is that sometimes people mistake our activity here for something important.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This weird rant has nothing to do with what I said, what I think, or what you were asked.

You asked me "What data should we be basing our opinions on?" and I replied not poll data, that poll data is unnecessary and useless unless you are the candidate using polls to strategize. As a voter your function isn't to plan the campaign, but to vote. One time per election. Instead of basing your vote on polling data you should base it on your own opinion of who is best for the job.

You seem unable to grasp the above, because you then said "Unless your argument is that it's literally impossible to have any indication of how an election might go and therefore the only reasonable approach is for everybody to treat every possibility as equally probable, then you presumably feel that the acquisition of data is possible. It seems that you don't believe polls can fulfil that function, so I'm curious as to what you feel is. "

To which I replied asking why you need to have an indication of how an election might go. Your task is still a vote, not to run the candidate's campaign for them. You still don't need polling data to decide which candidate to vote for.

Unless your criterion for voting for a candidate is to vote for the candidate that the most other people are voting for, in which case you may as well not vote at all. It would be the same result.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, we are "posters" after all. it is kind of the point of the activity.


The only danger is that sometimes people mistake our activity here for something important.

Apparently several people believe they are professional election strategists on the staff of the current candidates' campaigns. In which case I advise them to cease reading the nonsense posted here immediately, it's definitely not representative of anything that needs representing.

 

[autumn1971]

It's a larger discussion than this thread can handle (aka a derail). So if you plan to argue that any support for it in the modern era equates to supporting an old archaic way of thinking. And that it has slavery written all over it in the modern era it's on you to elaborate. But it isnt that simplistic and you know it full well.

It is that simple. Small states wanted disproportionate representation, and slave states wanted in on that.

Because of slavery.

Please expound on the extensive knowledge of primary sources you possess to refute this.

 

[Meadmaker]

It is that simple. Small states wanted disproportionate representation, and slave states wanted in on that.

Because of slavery.

Please expound on the extensive knowledge of primary sources you possess to refute this.

But please don't do it here. (Of course, GB already said he wouldn't, so I'm not too worried about that happening.)

 

[theprestige]

It is that simple. Small states wanted disproportionate representation, and slave states wanted in on that.

Because of slavery.

Please expound on the extensive knowledge of primary sources you possess to refute this.

Small states wanted the advantages of a union, without having their internal affairs dictated by the large states. Since everybody wanted the advantages of a union, the resulting arrangement was reasonably fair for all concerned. It's still fair today, really.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Hold on, let me check...

Nope! Still not the electoral college thread.

 

[a_unique_person]

A. I'm still team "This impeachment is handing Trump 2020 on a silver platter."

B is just an excuse since Mitch being Trump's boot licking toadie isn't some new information (and yes that includes any and all "but we didn't know he'd be this bad/blatant about it" variations, yes we all goddamn did) that just got introduced to the scenario that shouldn't already have been accounted for.

You can't separate starting a process and the process's end if everyone involved in the discussion agrees it's an inevitability.

Pelosi was apparently reluctant to move forward with impeachment despite the eagerness of others.

 

[Craig4]

A. I'm still team "This impeachment is handing Trump 2020 on a silver platter."

B is just an excuse since Mitch being Trump's boot licking toadie isn't some new information (and yes that includes any and all "but we didn't know he'd be this bad/blatant about it" variations, yes we all goddamn did) that just got introduced to the scenario that shouldn't already have been accounted for.

You can't separate starting a process and the process's end if everyone involved in the discussion agrees it's an inevitability.

I really don't understand why people say impeachment is handing Trump 2020 on a silver platter. Half of Americans believe Trump should be removed from office before his trial in the Senate. When the Trumptrash in the Senate fail to do their duty to their nation, it's not as if that fifty percent is going to say, "Oh well I guess he shouldn't be removed".

 

[The Don]

I really don't understand why people say impeachment is handing Trump 2020 on a silver platter. Half of Americans believe Trump should be removed from office before his trial in the Senate. When the Trumptrash in the Senate fail to do their duty to their nation, it's not as if that fifty percent is going to say, "Oh well I guess he shouldn't be removed".

Some of the half who say he should be removed from office are lying, just giving the answer they think the pollster wants, want to appear to give the "right" answer or some combination.

IMO a significant minority of that 50% will still vote for the GOP Presidential candidate in 2020, even if that candidate is President Trump.