Thread: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

You're right...

The evidence Kennedy had prior to challenging the country to get to the moon was far stronger than a couple polls Laz is looking at to project a landslide victory for Romney. But Laz is crazy, yet Kennedy knew what he was talking about because he had a mountain of "evidence" in front of him saying that it could be done.
nervous, sweaty palmed, mathematicians with slide rules and graph paper saying, "Yes Mr. President, we can land someone on the rock and bring them home again."

Holy goalpost shifting, Batman! From Armstrong to Kennedy in the blink of an eye. Yuri Gagarin flew into space April 12, 1961 and Kennedy's speech was on May 25, 1961. So they already knew we could survive and fly into space, so the next logical step was the moon and the science and research said it was possible.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Boy, we dodged a bullet there. Imagine if Kennedy had not followed his gut on that one, huh?

Eh, bad choice of words there, lol. Not everyone dodged a bullet.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

All I'm saying is that your rationale is jaded based on your idea of what makes something "evidence". You either can't or choose not to see this point, which will inevitably lead to another comment by you, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which...

Nope, not jaded, and my rationale is very simple. In a Presidential race, polls = evidence. It's not perfect, but it is evidence to go on. So is this like "You hang up, no you hang up, no you hang up..."?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

You're right...

The evidence Kennedy had prior to challenging the country to get to the moon was far stronger than a couple polls Laz is looking at to project a landslide victory for Romney. But Laz is crazy, yet Kennedy knew what he was talking about because he had a mountain of "evidence" in front of him saying that it could be done.

You know what he had? He had a bunch of nervous, sweaty palmed, mathematicians with slide rules and graph paper saying, "Yes Mr. President, we can land someone on the rock and bring them home again."

Boy, we dodged a bullet there. Imagine if Kennedy had not followed his gut on that one, huh?

All I'm saying is that your rationale is jaded based on your idea of what makes something "evidence". You either can't or choose not to see this point, which will inevitably lead to another comment by you, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which you will comment on, which I will respond to, which...

Landing on the Moon was hard, and those involved were certainly being courageous, but the physics involved were very well known, and it absolutely wasn't counter to any evidence.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Holy goalpost shifting, Batman! From Armstrong to Kennedy in the blink of an eye. Yuri Gagarin flew into space April 12, 1961 and Kennedy's speech was on May 25, 1961. So they already knew we could survive and fly into space, so the next logical step was the moon and the science and research said it was possible.

Not at all. All my previous comments still stand. They work, even if you don't want to admit it.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Eh, bad choice of words there, lol. Not everyone dodged a bullet.

Haha, true enough. Bad choice of words, lol.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Nope, not jaded, and my rationale is very simple. In a Presidential race, polls = evidence. It's not perfect, but it is evidence to go on. So is this like "You hang up, no you hang up, no you hang up..."?

No, you hang up first.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Landing on the Moon was hard, and those involved were certainly being courageous, but the physics involved were very well known, and it absolutely wasn't counter to any evidence.

No shit Sherlock. But if you read closer, the comparison was between landing on the moon and Laz's feelings about this election. So which seems more of a stretch to you, landing on the moon when no one has ever done it, or a landslide victory when the polls are this close?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Not at all. All my previous comments still stand. They work, even if you don't want to admit it.

They don't work, even if you don't want to admit it.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

No, you hang up first.

Let's hang up together on the count of 3!

2...

1...

Originally Posted by Ranger10

No shit Sherlock. But if you read closer, the comparison was between landing on the moon and Laz's feelings about this election. So which seems more of a stretch to you, landing on the moon when no one has ever done it, or a landslide victory when the polls are this close?

They're not comparable except on a very simplistic level (both had a high probability of failure). One was risky and difficult because of the small tolerances involved and the repercussions for failure. The other is risky because it's a unsupported shot in the dark.