Trump's newest tweet is really scary

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Great analogy.  I doubt it will lessen the Butthurt of the Hate Trump no matter what crowd. Same crowd that cried crocodile tears, whenever anyone dared critique Obama or get in the way of his agenda. 

Do you people know what an analogy is? 

 

It has to reflect what you are using the analogy for. The election was a single voting event where the winner is whoever has the best "spread" of votes, not the largest number. That has nothing to do with winning in the 3rd quarter and then losing. That's a horrible analogy.

[JayJayH 546]

27 minutes ago, bcking said:

Sorry that is a horrible analogy.

 

There is no sports analogy that works. It would be like a game where instead of the total number of points deciding the winner, the "spread" of points throughout the game is the deciding factor. So getting 2 points in all four quarters (total of 8) would beat a team who got 16 in the 4th.

 

If anything the Superbowl analogy then would support Clinton winning, not Trump. Since the Patriots won by making most of their points in one small place (4th quarter, think of it like NYC/California and other large population areas).

I disagree. You're reading the analogy wrong. The point of the analogy isn't the number of points or the spread. The point is, you can't assume the same outcome if you play by different rules.

I'm by no means arguing that Trump has a mandate. He doesn't. He's the least popular president to take office in U.S. history, despite his own claims that these polls are "rigged." Which stems from not understanding basic statistics. Most election polls were spot on - Except in PA, MI and WI. 45 out of 50 states were predicted within the margin of error.

 

But the popular vote argument is hypothetical.

 

If it was a pure popular vote election and I was the Trump campaign, I wouldn't have spent considerable resources on Wisconsin and Michigan. I would have campaigned more in Upstate New York. I would have campaigned more in inland California. I would have spent resources on massive get out the vote campaigns in rural Illinois. Point being, the popular vote argument assumes a similar outcome given completely different circumstances. There is no way of knowing what the outcome of the election would have been if it was a pure popular vote election, or if winning the popular vote had a certain impact on electoral votes.

 

How many California Republicans stayed home because "California is blue anyway?"

How many Texas Democrats stayed home because "Texas is red anyway?"

How many more Utah Republicans would have voted for Evan McMullin if Utah's 6 electoral college votes were not an issue?

How many Clinton voters in Ohio would have voted for Jill Stein had Ohio not been a swing state?

How many Trump voters in Pennsylvania would have voted for Gary Johnson had Pennsylvania not been a swing state?

 

When you play a game, you strategize according to the end goal.

The Cavs won the NBA playoffs because they won 4 out of 7 games, despite Golden State having more rebounds. If the goal was to have the most rebounds, the game would have been played differently from both sides, and the outcome would have been hypothetical at best.

Edited February 7, 2017 by JayJayH

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, JayJayH said:

I disagree. You're reading the analogy wrong. The point of the analogy isn't the number of points or the spread. The point is, you can't assume the same outcome if you play by different rules.

 

If it was a pure popular vote election and I was the Trump campaign, I wouldn't have spent considerable resources on Wisconsin and Michigan. I would have campaigned more in Upstate New York. I would have campaigned more in inland California. I would have spent resources on massive get out the vote campaigns in rural Illinois. Point being, the popular vote argument assumed a similar outcome given completely different circumstances. There is no way of knowing what the outcome of the election would have been if it was a pure popular vote election, or if winning the popular vote had a certain impact on electoral votes.

 

How many California Republicans stayed home because "California is blue anyway?"

How many Texas Democrats stayed home because "Texas is red anyway?"

How many more Utah Republicans would have voted for Evan McMullin if Utah's 6 electoral college votes were not an issue?

How many Clinton voters in Ohio would have voted for Jill Stein had Ohio not been a swing state?

How many Trump voters in Pennsylvania would have voted for Gary Johnson had Pennsylvania not been a swing state?

 

When you play a game, you strategize according to the end goal.

The Cavs won the NBA playoffs because they won 4 out of 7 games, despite Golden State having more rebounds. If the goal was to have the most rebounds, the game would have been played differently from both sides, and the outcome would have been hypothetical at best.

I agree with your entire post EXCEPT that your football analogy is still horrible.

 

Tom Brady did not play that game planning to be some 30 points behind, being the first Superbowl to go to overtime, and to come back by more points than any other team in history. That wasn't a "grand strategy". If he has said that in an interview is a liar. 

 

The football analogy just doesn't work. Football is about who gets the most points. It doesn't matter where they come from. It's just total number of points. That would be a better analogy for the popular vote.

 

I agree games where you win a series are better. Say the World Series. You can win one game by a huge margin and lose every other game by a tiny one and you will still lose. There it is not just about total points. Same with Tennis. Apparently same with NBA (didn't know they played a series). 

 

That is not true with football. The analogy would only work if we were talking about Trump changing his strategy mid-Election day or something, and even then it would be a pretty weak analogy.

 

Like I said I completely agree with your arguments about the election. The football analogy just doesn't support that.

[JayJayH 546]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

your football analogy is still horrible.

I'll take that and concede

[eieio 1,594]

34 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

I'll take that and concede

Two hours saved.

 

 

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, JayJayH said:

 

Eh.......

 

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

 

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

 

I'm not a fan of breitbart but I can't find it on many liberal sources and well we know it's true so...

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/liberals-explode-vitriol-notmysuperbowlchamps-trends-social-media/

 

I just find it to be kind of funny.

[verneforchat 139]

2 hours ago, JayJayH said:

 

Eh.......

 

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

 

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

Terrible analogy.

[verneforchat 139]

1 hour ago, JayJayH said:

I disagree. You're reading the analogy wrong. The point of the analogy isn't the number of points or the spread. The point is, you can't assume the same outcome if you play by different rules.

I'm by no means arguing that Trump has a mandate. He doesn't. He's the least popular president to take office in U.S. history, despite his own claims that these polls are "rigged." Which stems from not understanding basic statistics. Most election polls were spot on - Except in PA, MI and WI. 45 out of 50 states were predicted within the margin of error.

 

But the popular vote argument is hypothetical.

 

If it was a pure popular vote election and I was the Trump campaign, I wouldn't have spent considerable resources on Wisconsin and Michigan. I would have campaigned more in Upstate New York. I would have campaigned more in inland California. I would have spent resources on massive get out the vote campaigns in rural Illinois. Point being, the popular vote argument assumes a similar outcome given completely different circumstances. There is no way of knowing what the outcome of the election would have been if it was a pure popular vote election, or if winning the popular vote had a certain impact on electoral votes.

 

How many California Republicans stayed home because "California is blue anyway?"

How many Texas Democrats stayed home because "Texas is red anyway?"

How many more Utah Republicans would have voted for Evan McMullin if Utah's 6 electoral college votes were not an issue?

How many Clinton voters in Ohio would have voted for Jill Stein had Ohio not been a swing state?

How many Trump voters in Pennsylvania would have voted for Gary Johnson had Pennsylvania not been a swing state?

 

When you play a game, you strategize according to the end goal.

The Cavs won the NBA playoffs because they won 4 out of 7 games, despite Golden State having more rebounds. If the goal was to have the most rebounds, the game would have been played differently from both sides, and the outcome would have been hypothetical at best.

You grossly misunderstand what analogy and hypothetical means.

 

We get it. White women worry you, you like Trump. Just don't twist the words to wrap it around your argument and then whine about biases.

 

And stop comparing sports to politics, it is a terrible comparison.

[OriZ 3,157]

LOL. Jay likes Trump. Some people can't comprehend people with an open mind and an independent thought.

Edited February 7, 2017 by OriZ

[Merle 458]

10 hours ago, CaliCat said:

He lost the popular vote. 

He also didn't win the Nathan's hotdog eating contest or the Mr. Universe contest because he wasn't in those contests either.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Merle said:

He also didn't win the Nathan's hotdog eating contest or the Mr. Universe contest because he wasn't in those contests either.

Well I mean he was in the "popular vote contest", he just didn't need to win it in order to become President. It's not like he "wasn't in the contest" for popular vote. I'm pretty sure his name was on the ballot. If it wasn't, and he is President now, then that is some serious voter fraud.

 

So your analogy would have worked better if he actually did compete in the hotdog eating contest or Mr. Universe and didn't win but still became President.

 

The idea of an analogy is being tied to the back of a truck and driven through the mud in this thread.

[OriZ 3,157]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Well I mean he was in the "popular vote contest", he just didn't need to win it in order to become President. It's not like he "wasn't in the contest" for popular vote. I'm pretty sure his name was on the ballot. If it wasn't, and he is President now, then that is some serious voter fraud.

 

So your analogy would have worked better if he actually did compete in the hotdog eating contest or Mr. Universe and didn't win but still became President.

 

The idea of an analogy is being tied to the back of a truck and driven through the mud in this thread.

And my wife tells me I have OCD...

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, OriZ said:

And my wife tells me I have OCD...

I may have obsessions, but I don't have compulsions. 

[verneforchat 139]

18 minutes ago, OriZ said:

And my wife tells me I have OCD...

Your wife is an excellent diagnostician. 

[OriZ 3,157]

18 minutes ago, bcking said:

I may have obsessions, but I don't have compulsions. 

Your obsession is over the technicalities and your compulsion is the need to correct them

 

True story: When I was in the miliary, I shared a room with 2 friends. I always had my stuff neat I mean if I put my phone or watch down a certain way on the shelf or dresser and left the room and someone moved it I would notice it instantly. My friends used to torture me and mess with things inentionally so they would always get a "who touched my (enter object here)?". The funny thing is we all have some sort of OCD most people just don't realize it and most of the time it's not what they show you on TV.