Thread: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Sticking to your beliefs is one thing, sticking to your beliefs when they fly in the face of the evidence is another. For instance, I believe Obama will be a far better President than Romney ever could hope to be, but I don't believe he is going to win because of that. I believe he is going to win because the polling data shows he is going to win. If it showed Romney ahead, my belief that Obama was the better option would remain but I wouldn't believe Obama was going to win. That's where the fundamental disconnect comes in.

So it's not admirable to hold a belief that flies in the face of the evidence. That's how we get creationists and conspiracy theorists, and I don't think you'd say that those positions are admirable. If I'm wrong, it's because all the pollsters were wrong. Every single one of them. And that's a small possibility, I suppose, but not one I'm willing to bet on. If Laz is wrong, what's his reasoning?



Hey, that's fine. You can see me however you want, but I don't base my views on made-up wishes and feelings. I have data that supports what I believe and why. I'm not asking you to ever agree with my evidence or my conclusions, but there does come a time when the evidence is pretty conclusive one way or the other and it becomes foolish to deny it. That's when I think it becomes crazy and out-of-touch.

But see, this is where you inject your beliefs as canon. You say that every poll is going for Obama, yet when I link you one that says Romney is leading, you immediately discredit it because you don't like the result. Your "evidence" is based off a flawed view of... well, damn near everything.

I don't fault you for it. There are millions of people like you. But I also know that this iron clad evidentiary support you hold on to so dearly is filled with the same partisan thinking and rose colored glasses as you claim Lazarus looks through. You don't KNOW Romney will be a worse President. That's pure conjecture based on YOUR metric for what good, or successful is based on your on beliefs. Not everyone holds your beliefs, and as a result, your "evidence" is barely more than manipulated numbers created to support a weak thesis in the first place.

You are sticking to your beliefs no matter what any evidence shows. You have shown time and again that you are incapable of seeing someone else's point of view. If I were to show you that when prayer was taken out of schools, in-school violence jumped 320% since. Yet, you would look at that and blame swamp gas refracting off Venus because it fits your belief system better than a supernatural one.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

But see, this is where you inject your beliefs as canon. You say that every poll is going for Obama, yet when I link you one that says Romney is leading, you immediately discredit it because you don't like the result. Your "evidence" is based off a flawed view of... well, damn near everything.

Wrong, again. What you just said is you'd be willing to cherry-pick results to prove your point, and that's dishonest. I never take one poll as the gospel, which is why you never see me sourcing one poll here. I take them all into account, which allows you to take the aggregate and find any outliers either way. So if you find, say, one poll that shows Romney leading in Ohio, I'll show you 20 more that say the opposite. That means one is obviously an outlier and still won't change the aggregate much. Same as if you tried to show me a poll of Obama +8 or something in Ohio.

So you are again misrepresenting what I'd do in that circumstance.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I don't fault you for it. There are millions of people like you. But I also know that this iron clad evidentiary support you hold on to so dearly is filled with the same partisan thinking and rose colored glasses as you claim Lazarus looks through. You don't KNOW Romney will be a worse President. That's pure conjecture based on YOUR metric for what good, or successful is based on your on beliefs. Not everyone holds your beliefs, and as a result, your "evidence" is barely more than manipulated numbers created to support a weak thesis in the first place.

You are sticking to your beliefs no matter what any evidence shows. You have shown time and again that you are incapable of seeing someone else's point of view. If I were to show you that when prayer was taken out of schools, in-school violence jumped 320% since. Yet, you would look at that and blame swamp gas refracting off Venus because it fits your belief system better than a supernatural one.

Read my post, please. I clearly said it was my belief that Obama would be a far better President and that Mitt would be a disaster. That's how I feel and that's what I believe based on what I think they will accomplish, and that's not what I'm faulting Laz for. What I am faulting him for is totally ignoring the mountains of evidence that counters his claim that Obama is the favorite in the election to make some claim that there is a Romney landslide incoming. I can obviously see why he'd want that, just that the evidence doesn't support that. If the situation was reversed, I wouldn't be delusionally predicting an impending Obama landslide.

I just wish you'd read posts more careful and not read what you want to read in them and misrepresent my positions, deliberately or not. I don't know why you are incapable of that, you seem to do this often.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I wonder if Isaac Newton would feel the same way. Or Magellan. Or Neil Armstrong. Or DaVinci. Or Einstein. Or the Wright Brothers.

Nothing great is every achieved by sitting back, looking at the "evidence" which points to certain failure, and doing nothing.

I think you'd be better served to find a better list of pioneers, but I get what you are saying. They had evidence on their side, though. They went out, found supporting facts to refute other claims. They used SCIENCE, which is what I am using here. They did not just want to believe something was true, and that was the end of it. They researched and studied and tested their ideas. Ignoring the polling data is like being the Church back in the day who opposed any new theories as witchcraft or whatever.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I think you'd be better served to find a better list of pioneers, but I get what you are saying. They had evidence on their side, though. They went out, found supporting facts to refute other claims. They used SCIENCE, which is what I am using here. They did not just want to believe something was true, and that was the end of it. They researched and studied and tested their ideas. Ignoring the polling data is like being the Church back in the day who opposed any new theories as witchcraft or whatever.

Evidence is a product of what happens in the past. A forensic pathologist looks for "evidence" of a crime which has already taken place. Archaeologists look for "evidence" of a culture from ages ago. Polls are "evidence" of who a group of individuals chose to be their President.

Who flew before the Wright Brothers? Who landed on the moon before Neil Armstrong? Who proved the world wasn't flat?

And all of those I just mentioned, put their lives on the line because of gut instinct.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I wonder if Isaac Newton would feel the same way. Or Magellan. Or Neil Armstrong. Or DaVinci. Or Einstein. Or the Wright Brothers.

Nothing great is every achieved by sitting back, looking at the "evidence" which points to certain failure, and doing nothing.

None of these people did things that the evidence suggested were impossible.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

It's not that I'm incapable of anything... I just don't trust you. You can link me anything you want. But because it comes from you, my first instinct is to wonder what left-wing, liberal website you got "this" off this time.

I have NEVER told anyone to take my word on anything. I have always been happy to provide my source for ANY statistic or number I cite, all it takes is to ask. Most of the time I do already, and if I don't, I can get it when requested. So please, ask me to cite my sources whenever you want. I intentionally steer away from using left-wing sites as sources, which is more that can be said for you or Laz with right-wing ones and DG with no sources at all, because I know the connotation they can carry and try to make the debate about the information at hand and not the source. But remember, I don't trust you, either, because I don't see you as an rational independent, so the street goes both ways.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Every acidic retort you write, every hyperolic comment, every insult you hurl toward me, or Laz, or DG, or anyone else who disagrees with you erodes your credibility to the point where nothing you say is really worth hearing.

You three do the exact same things and pretending otherwise is silly. You're the right-wing posse here and are known to hurl the insults, too. It's politics and it's something that can really get under people's skin and lead to heated discussions.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

You are so far to the left that "moderate" looks like a hundred miles away. I'm sorry, but that's kind of the name you've made for yourself here. I'm sure others would disagree, but then again, one could make the argument they're right behind you.

...I don't know what you are getting at? I've never pretended to be a moderate and I am the first one to say I'm very liberal and a leftist and the political scale. I embrace that, I don't run from it, so why are you apologizing?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Evidence is a product of what happens in the past. A forensic pathologist looks for "evidence" of a crime which has already taken place. Archaeologists look for "evidence" of a culture from ages ago. Polls are "evidence" of who a group of individuals chose to be their President.

Who flew before the Wright Brothers? Who landed on the moon before Neil Armstrong? Who proved the world wasn't flat?

And all of those I just mentioned, put their lives on the line because of gut instinct.

Just because it hasn't been done doesn't imply that it goes against the evidence. By the time that Armstrong landed on the moon, the evidence that this was possible was overwhelming. The same goes for the wright brothers. We're not sure how the Greeks figured out that the world was spherical, but it was almost certainly due to the evidence provided by lunar eclipses, the horizon or various traits of perspective.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Evidence is a product of what happens in the past. A forensic pathologist looks for "evidence" of a crime which has already taken place. Archaeologists look for "evidence" of a culture from ages ago. Polls are "evidence" of who a group of individuals chose to be their President.

Who flew before the Wright Brothers?

Gliders and hot-air balloons were around long before which proved heavier-than-air flight was possible. This was based on research.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Who landed on the moon before Neil Armstrong?

Space flight wasn't anything new at this point, neither was spacewalking. All that stuff had been tested and verified before Armstrong landed. He didn't take that flight on faith or gut instinct that it would work, he trusted science.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Who proved the world wasn't flat?

People knew the world wasn't flat long before Magellen.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

And all of those I just mentioned, put their lives on the line because of gut instinct.

No, they researched, studied, and trusted the science that came before them. The believed the evidence that said everything would go as planned. They didn't just say, "aw fuck it, lets strap on this rocket and hope for the best!"