Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
You want to give me odds on how many posters ITF could derive the quadratic formula by themselves, by completing the square (or by any other means)? I would put the under at 5. You, uke, WillD, me, who else?
I can't. It has never struck me as an important thing to learn, and I haven't taken a math class in thirty years.
It's both amusing and disheartening to see everyone arguing about the voting tendencies of various demographics and pretending like it means anything. No one offered objective criteria on which to judge the parties or candidates and for what reasons. You've reduced people to nothing more than sex and education, and act that as if college educated people or those with STEM degrees are more likely to vote a certain way, it somehow means they're right.
Oh but the thing started because a number of people here (ecriture first but not exclusive) definitely claim that democrats are better (in some objectified moral sense) because educated people vote for them more.
And you can't have missed then defining trump voters as either evil or stupid.
To which I suggested that facts and logic make me believe the best people (again, a moral judgement I know) among those with a college degree, IE those with degrees that users here agree are worthy more than others, actually voted Trump relatively more.
I am ok with the other tangent of "maybe having a degree doesn't make you a better person" and we could discuss this but a ton of people operate in life as if having a degree does actually make you a better person, and having a degree does correlate with a lot of things people usually consider morally positive (like low crime rates compared to the rest of the population and many other things).
Oh but the thing started because a number of people here (ecriture first but not exclusive) definitely claim that democrats are better (in some objectified moral sense) because educated people vote for them more.
And you can't have missed then defining trump voters as either evil or stupid.
To which I suggested that facts and logic make me believe the best people (again, a moral judgement I know) among those with a college degree, IE those with degrees that users here agree are worthy more than ot
I call for a thread about political ethics.
Oh but the thing started because a number of people here (ecriture first but not exclusive) definitely claim that democrats are better (in some objectified moral sense) because educated people vote for them more.
And you can't have missed then defining trump voters as either evil or stupid.
To which I suggested that facts and logic make me believe the best people (again, a moral judgement I know) among those with a college degree, IE those with degrees that users here agree are worthy more than ot
And others called leftish people evil so what the difference ?
The real Matt Gaetz story... it's not what you think.
I can't. It has never struck me as an important thing to learn, and I haven't taken a math class in thirty years.
You also don't stick your neck out speaking out on mathematical topics, and in fact make a point to defer to those who are versed in that particular subject. What an odd coincidence. Maybe this whole "not speaking authoritatively on things I know **** all about" could become a trend.
It's both amusing and disheartening to see everyone arguing about the voting tendencies of various demographics and pretending like it means anything. No one offered objective criteria on which to judge the parties or candidates and for what reasons. You've reduced people to nothing more than sex and education, and act that as if college educated people or those with STEM degrees are more likely to vote a certain way, it somehow means they're right.
This is just the age old "what is smart" stuff. Ok, you want to call being able to build a shed "smart", that's your definition. Fine.
There's a saying in mathematics - "definitions can never be right or wrong, but they can be useful."
I'm not convinced yours is. Or if that's how you want to define "smart", then give me another word to use for what you know I mean when I say it. Then everyone will stat using that word, and we'll have this discussion all over again.
Wise.
The MVS quotes argue that intelligence has more to do with analytical ability and being able to process information than knowing facts. Do you disagree?
Oh but the thing started because a number of people here (ecriture first but not exclusive) definitely claim that democrats are better (in some objectified moral sense) because educated people vote for them more.
Nice fictional retelling to make yourself feel better, but no matter how you think it started, you saying wrong stuff about basic statistics is why it kept going.
Are intelligent people more likely to make better decisions? If so, define "better?" Are those decisions better by objective moral standards or subjective ones? Are they aimed at self-interest, community, or something in between? What is in our best interest? Point me towards progress. Are intelligent people more or less moral than stupid people? If they're more moral, show me evidence. If you don't have evidence, then you can argue that stupid people make better moral decisions. Half the population is below average intelligence, right? Are so-called smart people blinded by their own arrogance? Probably. The point is: this conversation is mostly meaningless.
Once people can write a Gaussian is right around the time they start getting it.
Intelligence may contribute towards achieving goals, but it doesn't have anything to say about whether or not those goals are good.
It can also be deceptive. Think about the relation between intelligence and psychology.
Luckbox, you think if I locked you in a room with no vaseline or top shelf magazines, you could figure out the quadratic formula yourself by completing the square?
I ask coz I was in that situation, so I did exactly that. If they gave me 10 years, I could have been Euler. Or Gauss, of the integral. Or maybe Cartes, of the coordinates.
Are intelligent people more likely to make better decisions? If so, define "better?" Are those decisions better by objective moral standards or subjective ones? Are they aimed at self-interest, community, or something in between? What is in our best interest? Point me towards progress. Are intelligent people more or less moral than stupid people? If they're more moral, show me evidence. If you don't have evidence, then you can argue that stupid people make better moral decisions. Half the popula
Intelligence may contribute towards achieving goals, but it doesn't have anything to say about whether or not those goals are good.
Are you basically craig, but without the word salad impediment?
Are intelligent people more likely to make better decisions? If so, define "better?" Are those decisions better by objective moral standards or subjective ones? Are they aimed at self-interest, community, or something in between? What is in our best interest? Point me towards progress. Are intelligent people more or less moral than stupid people? If they're more moral, show me evidence. If you don't have evidence, then you can argue that stupid people make better moral decisions. Half the popula
We define the people who are more likely to and have a track record of making better decisions as "intelligent". Like I said - definitions are not right or wrong, but they can be useful.
The conversation is mostly meaningless, and more to the point, we had literally this conversation in the, wait for it, "IQ" thread not so long ago. Don't worry, you're not the only person out there who would prefer to deny that IQ is a real, meaningful measure of anything. In fact, the only reason that certified geniuses like me and chez and Sklansky like it is because we score so high on the tests. Probably "toxic intelligence" or something.
Luckbox, you think if I locked you in a room with no vaseline or top shelf magazines, you could figure out the quadratic formula yourself by completing the square?
I ask coz I was in that situation, so I did exactly that. If they gave me 10 years, I could have been Euler. Or Gauss, of the integral. Or maybe Cartes, of the coordinates.
No I'm not that smart I just have a superior memory. People mistake that to think I'm smart but being able to remember stuff is like that
It's both amusing and disheartening to see everyone arguing about the voting tendencies of various demographics and pretending like it means anything. No one offered objective criteria on which to judge the parties or candidates and for what reasons. You've reduced people to nothing more than sex and education, and act that as if college educated people or those with STEM degrees are more likely to vote a certain way, it somehow means they're right.
"People that we think are very smart are not ne
This is just the age old "what is smart" stuff. Ok, you want to call being able to build a shed "smart", that's your definition. Fine.
There's a saying in mathematics - "definitions can never be right or wrong, but they can be useful."
I'm not convinced yours is. Or if that's how you want to define "smart", then give me another word to use for what you know I mean when I say it. Then everyone will stat using that word, and we'll have this discussion all over again.
The MVS quotes argue that intelligence has more to do with analytical ability and being able to process information than knowing facts. Do you disagree?
.
Can you make your point a bit clearer? I'm sure that Luciom and chez will jump straight in to explain what "." means, but it's a bit cryptic for a dumbo like me.
Quoting a bunch of posts that clearly have a connection in your mind is not as persuasive as you seem to think. Well, I mean, it could be persuasive, I just have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Can you make your point a bit clearer? I'm sure that Luciom and chez will jump straight in to explain what "." means, but it's a bit cryptic for a dumbo like me.
Quoting a bunch of posts that clearly have a connection in your mind is not as persuasive as you seem to think. Well, I mean, it could be persuasive, I just have no idea what point you are trying to make.
It's Gaussian.
