Trump tells congresswomen of color born in America to "go back to their crime infested country"

I have not insulted you, I had assailed only your presumptions.

This is factually incorrect. It would be correct to say "100,000 is not all Americans", it would be correct to say "Not every American was asked", but to imply that a scientific poll is not representative...that's just illustrative of ignorance.

And when I say ignorance I do not mean stupidity. I mean you are ignorant of the math, rules and algorithms behind representational polling, just as I am ignorant of what you have in your pockets.

@br0kenrabbit:

Im not ignoring anything and that is an accurate statement.

The only way to say "68% of Americans think..." is if every American citizen is questioned. Otherwise its just an educated guess.

There is no way to spin that, sorry.

Ironic to call me the ignorant one when others are the ones who appear so attached to these polls. Very very ironic. Im the one questioning their validity.

I'm pretty sure Heirren is just attacking the wording they use to relay poll results. Correct?

No. Again, your ignorance is forefront.

Take a few statistics classes. The math is pretty solid, if a bit complex, but it works. We have centuries of study to back it up.

Yet this one guy on Gamespot forums says...

lulz

@br0kenrabbit:

Wrong. Im not the one being ignorant.

Again, what i said is a sound fact. How is it not? It isnt even my opinion, lol. Its just a neutral statement.

Now, what were you trying to add to the discussion, again?

Let's take this from the top to clear things up. This was your initial reply to toocool340 stating:

Do people seriously not understand that attacking a persons nationality can also be filed under racist too?

Your reply:

I understand that's an idiotic concept that waters down the concept of racism to the point that it almost becomes an empty point of conversation and also severely waters down the real-world effects of real racism throughout history and in modern times.

My initial response to you wasn't unfounded (I don't know how to link to the specific post as you've been doing, so my apologies). You rejected the notion that nationalism can, and oft is, construed as racist under downright idiocy and argued that such a belief watered racism down until the concept was basically meaningless. Despite what you believe, this completely neglects the realities of racism and under which pretenses it is propagated in the world. Nationalism is, and always has been, one method of which racism operates, where it resides, and my response to you launched off on your repudiation of this.

I admittedly went off on a bit of a rant retrospectively, but not without basis. Why I qualified you as a Trump supporter is because I've seen some of your posts in other threads that have alluded to this belief (and if I'm mistaken in that, then I'll grant you that's my fault), and additionally this narrative is also a tactic of Trump supporters to attempt to draw a distinction between nationalism and race in Trump's defense, which while they certainly can be viewed as exclusive concepts, in the context of which this argument takes place, are conflated, or at the very best, blurred.

Your next reply to my post:

As demonstrated by your lack of capacity to understand that nationality is not the same as race, despite the fact that some Republicans use it as such... something that should be used against them, yet I see too many people like you agreeing with them. Which they later use to make you look like a complete idiot because they understand the difference and, apparently, you don't.

And, yes, the whole point of confusing them like this is to water down the discussions of real-world racism to the point the accusations become empty... and you're helping them. You are part of the problem.

My view on nationality and race isn't absolute. I don't align the former with the latter, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Republicans in any concrete terms, context is relevant here. You immediately appear to ignorantly jump to the assumption that I'm broadly beholden to my perspective of nationalism and race when in fact I'm arguing that in exclusivity in the context of Trump's tweets and past, nationalism and racism are flirting on the borders of their delineations.

Are you honestly naive enough to deny that nationalism can never be attributed to race? A little look at some world history will demonstrate to you that the latter can easily piggyback onto the former and the former can, and has, been utilized to insidiously push such ideologies, and in the the manner aforementioned in my initial reply to you. By what criteria in distinction can you make the argument it does or doesn't? Where do you draw the line?

Now I could go more into our exchange post this, but it'd be too long and this is effectively where it derailed in seeming misunderstanding. All I was arguing was that I disagree with your position that viewing nationalism as synonymous with racism (in the context of Trump's statements, his behavior, and his rhetoric) as an idiotic concept that waters down the ramifications of racism is incredibly naive and dismissive to something that creates immense hardship. I agree nationalism does not always equate to racism, but let's not pretend it's absent any historical context, nor forget that this thread and argument obviously very much resides in one pertinent.

And as you have been one ITT who has argued that Trump's past gives him no benefits and that you believe it to be racist (yes?), I find it a tad amusing and curious that you'd make such a statement towards toocool and then act all indignant and incredulous when confronted when people are obviously going to be operating within the context where nationalism and race can very much be viewed as one and the same.

Had we not been discussing this in Trump's America, I'd have never taken a position of such contention with you.

The facts are in disagreement with you.

If you are so sure of yourself, why don't you write CNN or BBC or something and tell them the entire polling industry has it wrong. Let's see if you can get someone to listen.

I bet you can't.

In this particular case, it isn't just media. There's a long history of racism in play as well, and Trump's words are extremely difficult to see as not racist unless you assume he is somehow completely ignorant of the long history of racism saying what he did to people of that particular background and doesn't listen to any of his advisers. There would be no reason to assume he didn't know, given he has plenty of people around to tell him and he does have a background with the education exposure and list of former friends to learn it.

He has absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.

Trust me, I need not be told. It's obvious.

@br0kenrabbit:

I do.

..."well, we conducted these surveys and polls."

Lol. No.

30 employees. The boss polls 6 of them. He asks them, "hey people do you want Sloppy Joe 3 times during the week in the cafe?" The 6 people say yes. The next week 24 of them are asking, "why the f are we being served this 3 times a week?" The boss says, "i conducted polls which said you all wanted it."

Common sense.

Again showing your ignorance. You cannot conduct a representative poll with such a small sample size. Is against the rules. Rules you would know if you knew what you were talking about.

You should seriously take some Statistics classes before voicing an opinion on the topic. For people who have, your responses are face-palm worthy.

Holy shit, this is basic stats 101.

@br0kenrabbit:

Size is all relative.

Claiming 68% of Americans cannot be done unless its actually 68%.

Are you missing the point? Youre the one that jumped in here. You are at least caught up on the discussion, i presume?

Again showing your ignorance.

Don't ask me, ask anyone here who has taken a statistics class. What you claim above is just as wrong as saying "Mars is the ashes of Earth". I can shout it as much as I want, doesn't make it so.

Edit: Google : statistical significance

@br0kenrabbit:

Wait, are you actually missing the point? You didnt just jump in mid discussion and lay down a blanket statement, did you?

It's interesting that math has become a political wedge issue.

I am attacking a single point of contention. You state that you cannot have a representative poll that represents broad opinion from a subset of sampling. I call BS and throw the whole statistics field at you.

You're wrong. It's not even a judgement to be determined, you've been wrong from the outset.

@br0kenrabbit:

And so you understand the context of the discussion then, correct? Or are you just being an jerk? Just have to make sure. In the very least you should know where that stemmed from.

Not wrong, buddy, sorry.

*Sigh* There's always that one guy in the class who just doesn't clue in. "The cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time, that's just stupid!"

He's not entirely wrong that polls can be inaccurate; there's even a discussion of this for the prior Presidential election. It comes down to several factors, as that article notes, and not necessarily methodology. In general, it usually comes down to "this is our best guess based on the data we have." Unfortunately, science is not yet capable of predicting the future.

I'm going to start this out by saying this: I am sorry for my wordings in this thread. And given the level of your reply, I do owe you that apology at minimum.

I will admit I am not fully supportive of the Democrat party. But that's because I am tired of watching the party I align with most stare victory in the eyes, punch it in the throat, snatch defeat from its jaws while it's shocked and gagging, and then stand there and wonder how they managed to lose. Time after time after time. It's like with Hillary Clinton; she could have won if she had even bothered to campaign. And then watching the party leadership turn around and try its best to slap down minority women, to the point I'm sometimes left wondering if the old conspiracy theories that both parties are run by the Illuminati or Lizard People aren't true; either would certainly be more logical than what I see happening before my eyes. So, yes, I admit I'm frustrated with them.

I'm not going to deny that nationalism can be tied to racism. But, a major reason I see why to oppose the concept: The usage. Historically, tying the two together has always involved minorities being discriminated against as not being part of the nation. "Mexicans don't deserve aid or jobs because they're not even Americans!" is far from a new sentiment. We see it even now, in Trump's statement of telling people to "go back to the nations you came from" just because he's a different race than them.

Plus, I find the concept to be idiotic; how many Americans have ancestries that are a mixture of different races? What is the exact mixture of races to be truly an American? Does the Native American ancestry I have make me less qualified, or more? And racism is still a massive problem in the United States.

And let's not forget that nationalism isn't inherently bad; taking pride in your nation and helping your nation compete against others can aid everyone in the long run, as the Cold War demonstrated (of course, the Cold War also had numerous massive downsides; it wasn't exactly pleasant for much of the world). Humanity walked on the Moon because of nationalism, because of that driving ideal that one nation must strive to prove itself superior to another. If we could repeat that, and without as many downsides, it's entirely possible we'll have people walking on Pluto by the time it winds down again.

Racism, on the other hand, is inherently bad. That's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. So you can probably understand why I don't want it connected to nationalism in thoughts. Because if it is connected, then it creates the very scary problem that "taking pride in my nation" must mean "destroying those who are different."

Thus Trump's tweet, and thus my reaction when toocool reflected the same mindset in their comment.

@heirren: Dude stop arguing math. You can't win that.

Wait, you mean it wasn't already?

Um, that was the intended message of Schrodinger's Cat. It was intended to criticize quantum mechanics, not to support them. So the guy in class who chimes in with that is the only one who understood what Schrodinger was trying to say.

@LJS9502_basic:

Math? Ha. Now thats funny. Extremely funny.

@br0kenrabbit:

In other words you are clueless as to the context. Amazing.

True. However, subsequent testing has proven Schrodinger was correct even if he did not intend to be. Quantum superposition is factual, observed and repeatable.

Got stuck in the Quote feature (couldn't position under it) so there's gonna be a blank quote at the bottom.

That's the thing though: Polls DO NOT predict the future, they are a snapshot at the time of the poll. So no, it's not methodology, it's people expecting something polls can't do.

That's probably the best part of Schrodinger's Cat. His attempt at satire turned out to be so accurate it's the best thought experiment demonstration we have today.

That's the thing though: Polls DO NOT predict the future, they are a snapshot at the time of the poll. So no, it's not methodology, it's people expecting something polls can't do.

Also true. I think that is what he's missing in this.

I prefer 'Schrodinger's Student".

He sets up the experiment with the cat and goes out to lunch. Not wanting to walk across the campus after lunch, he sends a student to check on the cat. Once the student checks on the cat, THE STUDENT is in a state of superposition relative to Mr. Schrodinger.

Ooooooo.......

@br0kenrabbit:

If someone comes at me and says, for example, "80% of Americans think the Earth is flat." My immediate response is "based on what, you literally contacted all americans!?" If the answer is, "well we did these studies.."......i just laugh. Its not an acceptable answer.

Where studies and statistics do hold real value are in the medical field, when a doctor says, for example, "well, you have roughly a 20% chance of surviving this operation" because the statement rests on recorded data of people which had undergone a very similar procedure.

In politics? Nah. F that, and imo the entire voting process should be hand counted. Electronic counting, electronic poll data......high risk for billsht

Do think all that stuff is useless? No. But, i also think it has high potential for abuse to sway public opinion.

"Schrodinger's Teaching Assistant"

Schrodinger still doesn't want to walk back, and his student has not returned. So he calls over his teaching assistant and sends them to check on the cat and student. Only the student, due to not liking Schrodinger's assistant, hides from the assistant rather than report back to Schrodinger.

Thus we have the student, cat, and assistant in a state of superposition relative to Schrodinger and a demonstration of the observer effect.

The 2020 elections will be a hugely entertaining affair. Get Bernie Sanders as the Democrat nominee and it will be a huge fight to remember between the dumpster fire and the Bern. The elites might all die of heart attacks. One one hand a self professed socialist and on the other hand a nut job psycho.

I will have my bag of popcorn ready. Elections are becoming as unpredictable and fun as the super bowl. Except the elections have a huge impact on people's lives, unlike the super bowl.

Haha, I love it!

@zaryia: I’m guessing context in full confuses you?

@heirren: Could you do yourself a favour and read up on statistics? You're trolling depending on the point of view here.

@horgen:

Nothing will refute the fact ive stated. Very simple

You didn't understand it when it was. Very simple.

Come on Mods. Its time to drive a stake in this threads heart. Or however it is that you kill zombies.

This thing is starting to stink like last week's fish.

A dumbass will argue that 2+2=3, when they willfully ignore math

@horgen:

68% of Americans disagree with me: BASED. ON. WHAT? A poll. Lmfao. That is not a fact. A study and/or poll done says this, but these are not facts.

Fyi, the numbers are on my side, because these polls do not account for everyone, and therefore when being directly told that 68% of americans disagree? Thats a shallow statement. Polls cannot be used as factual statements. Should we start convicting people based on polls? Lol, please.

More accurate in this case is 2+*+5*+2×8+2×*=*****