OK, Isnt This Kind of Odd?

[SwimExpert]

He has had hundreds of thousands of independents and Democrats come across the aisle, so to speak, to vote for him, while Hillarys turn out is about 30% less than what the Dems had in 2008.

And Trump will lose independents? I think that is wishful thinking on your part.

Trojan Horses. He's had hundreds of thousands of Trojan Horses.

Wow, were they all in on the conspiracy?

Do you think Trump won because of a Democrat Operation Chaos?

Lol, dude, get real.

I didn't say he won because of Operation Chaos. I said that the alleged cross over appeal you claim has been demonstrated is nothing more than Operation Chaos.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I didn't say he won because of Operation Chaos. I said that the alleged cross over appeal you claim has been demonstrated is nothing more than Operation Chaos.

OR it could be the manifestation of a populist candidate who is honestly growing the party instead of shrinking it by promising to gut the job exportation aspect of our 'free trade' agreements which are nothing of a sort and just a sham.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hillary is getting super delegate votes, which should not count. They are for special circumstances and aren't supposed to be used to artificially prop up an unpopular candidate. There is some cheating going on.

I have been saying that too, from the first time Sanders won New Hampshire by 70% but Clinton STILL WON MORE DELEGATES.

But the Hillary folks were all like 'Its OK dude, she is winning more votes!' WTF, how does that work when Sanders won with 70%?

 

[JimBowie1958]

2. There is a difference.
A. Anyone can give money away to multiple campaigns who isn't a Constitutionalist and let other people make those decisions for them.
B. But if you are running for office, whether or not YOU can defend principles based on the Constitution becomes YOUR duty of office.
Where the two meet: if you HIRE and surround yourself with people who can do this work for you, it's still possible to defend the Constitution using a combination of A and B. And if someone could pull it off well, employing people from all parties in positions to serve, sure they'd have diverse support to run for office if they agreed to share power this way.

Good post, and you have some good points, but the gist of my observation is the medias 180 degree swing around from Trump being an admired man, business genius, Reality TV star, to being portrayed as a clown, moron and bum. The narrative started to turn from the time Trump decided to pass on another year of 'The Apprentice'.

It would appear, that the media is owned by corporations that use them to support their favorite political candidates, i.e. those that will stoop and fetch for the Masters of the Universe. These Masters knew Trump would not stoop and fetch for them, so they decided to smear him and use their ownership of the media to do the deed.

About 80% of our media of all forms is owned by about 6 corporations and they all hate Trump. He is knocking over their apple carts.

And apparently they have the game so rigged that they didnt care that they were showing their hands to the whole nation. They thought it wouldnt matter anyway.

But I think that the growing movement to enact campaign finance reform by whatever means is necessary has become a solid majority in this country now and we will see some meaningful and effective reform.

 

[SwimExpert]

I didn't say he won because of Operation Chaos. I said that the alleged cross over appeal you claim has been demonstrated is nothing more than Operation Chaos.

OR it could be the manifestation of a populist candidate who is honestly growing the party instead of shrinking it by promising to gut the job exportation aspect of our 'free trade' agreements which are nothing of a sort and just a sham.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I didn't say he won because of Operation Chaos. I said that the alleged cross over appeal you claim has been demonstrated is nothing more than Operation Chaos.

OR it could be the manifestation of a populist candidate who is honestly growing the party instead of shrinking it by promising to gut the job exportation aspect of our 'free trade' agreements which are nothing of a sort and just a sham.

Lol, why do so many libertarians think that Occams Razor is a principle applied outside of science?

It is not a means of determining Truth, it is just science short hand. If we have two theories that adequately explain a phenomena, and one is much more complex than the other, the less complex is the one favored as most likely true. It does not determine that it is true, however.

Howver in this case, the idea of millions of independents and Democrats voluntarily crossing over to vote for a populist candidate that would bring back jobs is a far more simpler explanation than some kind of Operation Chaos theory would be, so you didnt apply Occams Razor correctly anyway.

 

[SwimExpert]

Lol, why do so many libertarians think that Occams Razor is a principle applied outside of science?

Actually is a principle of logic.

 

[g5000]

1. If Hillary has won so many more votes than Sanders, then why are her negatives so much higher and her poll numbers against Trump so much lower as compared to Sanders numbers against Trump? Why dont her voters ever respond to the favorabillity polls? They seem to be hanging up on the pollsters at a much higher frequency than everyone elses voters.

This is a lesson about the correlation between opinion polls and who actually turns out to vote.

2. Trump was everyone's friend back and well respected back when he gave money to both parties, but once he decided to run for President the media decided he was a clown, a bum and a moron. Is there a connection?

Donald Trump: The Next Best Thing To A Clinton™.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, why do so many libertarians think that Occams Razor is a principle applied outside of science?

Actually is a principle of logic.

It is an arbitrary rule of thumb that proves nothing. It is merely a scientific preference.
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable....

Appeals to simplicity were used to argue against the phenomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, and reverse transcriptase. One can argue for atomic building blocks for matter, because it provides a simpler explanation for the observed reversibility of both mixing and chemical reactions as simple separation and rearrangements of atomic building blocks. At the time, however, the atomic theory was considered more complex because it implied the existence of invisible particles that had not been directly detected. Ernst Mach and the logical positivists rejected John Dalton's atomic theory until the reality of atoms was more evident in Brownian motion, as shown by Albert Einstein....

Three axioms presupposed by the scientific method are realism (the existence of objective reality), the existence of natural laws, and the constancy of natural law. Rather than depend on provability of these axioms, science depends on the fact that they have not been objectively falsified. Occam's razor and parsimony support, but do not prove, these axioms of science. The general principle of science is that theories (or models) of natural law must be consistent with repeatable experimental observations. This ultimate arbiter (selection criterion) rests upon the axioms mentioned above.[4]

There are examples where Occam's razor would have favored the wrong theory given the available data. Simplicity principles are useful philosophical preferences for choosing a more likely theory from among several possibilities that are all consistent with available data. A single instance of Occam's razor favoring a wrong theory falsifies the razor as a general principle.[4] Michael Lee and others[47] provide cases in which a parsimonious approach does not guarantee a correct conclusion and, if based on incorrect working hypotheses or interpretations of incomplete data, may even strongly support a false conclusion. Lee states, "When parsimony ceases to be a guideline and is instead elevated to an ex cathedra pronouncement, parsimony analysis ceases to be science."[citation needed]

If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same testable predictions, they are equivalent and there is no need for parsimony to choose a preferred one. For example, Newtonian, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian classical mechanics are equivalent. Physicists have no interest in using Occam's razor to say the other two are wrong. Likewise, there is no demand for simplicity principles to arbitrate between wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Science often does not demand arbitration or selection criteria between models that make the same testable predictions.

Occam's Razor is not a principle of Logic, but a convenient short hand to make a call when there are equally valid contradictory theories.

 

[SwimExpert]

Lol, why do so many libertarians think that Occams Razor is a principle applied outside of science?

Actually is a principle of logic.

It is an arbitrary rule of thumb that proves nothing.

No.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, why do so many libertarians think that Occams Razor is a principle applied outside of science?

Actually is a principle of logic.

It is an arbitrary rule of thumb that proves nothing.

No.

Yes, it is. Occam's Razor has never proven anything, dude, in actuality, there are many cases of it having been proven WRONG and is therefore USELESS as a principle.

 

[Redfish]

1. If Hillary has won so many more votes than Sanders, then why are her negatives so much higher and her poll numbers against Trump so much lower as compared to Sanders numbers against Trump? Why dont her voters ever respond to the favorabillity polls? They seem to be hanging up on the pollsters at a much higher frequency than everyone elses voters.

2. Trump was everyone's friend back and well respected back when he gave money to both parties, but once he decided to run for President the media decided he was a clown, a bum and a moron. Is there a connection?

3. Neoconservatives and libertarians say they admire our heroic soldiers, sailors and airmen while they fight over seas, but no one seems to be able to explain how these heroes suddenly turn into 'lazy bums' when they get back home and cant find a job. Cant help but wonder if the problem is the unemployed soldier or the flood of cheap foreign labor the Neocons enrich themselves with? The neocons are filthy rich, in case anyone was wondering.

4. Hillary thinks she can win the general election by advocating for men to be able to enter little girls locker rooms, promotes Black Lies Matter, wants higher taxes on the working class, supports TPP and NAFTA and GATT and WTO? I guess I'll have a Coke.

the answer is simple, the democrat primary process is a scam. Its been corrupt forever, but this year the voters are finally understanding just how corrupt it is.

 

[SwimExpert]

Occam's Razor has never proven anything

That makes sense. It is inductive.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Occam's Razor has never proven anything

That makes sense. It is inductive.

Lol, now you are going to destroy inductive reason as well?

All testing, observation, statistical analysis involves induction, taking a bunch of independent observations and reasoning to a general concept, but Occam's Razor does nothing of the sort.

It brings no new facts at all. It is simply a rule of thumb that is very often wrong.

Stop embarrassing yourself, mmk?

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. If Hillary has won so many more votes than Sanders, then why are her negatives so much higher and her poll numbers against Trump so much lower as compared to Sanders numbers against Trump? Why dont her voters ever respond to the favorabillity polls? They seem to be hanging up on the pollsters at a much higher frequency than everyone elses voters.

2. Trump was everyone's friend back and well respected back when he gave money to both parties, but once he decided to run for President the media decided he was a clown, a bum and a moron. Is there a connection?

3. Neoconservatives and libertarians say they admire our heroic soldiers, sailors and airmen while they fight over seas, but no one seems to be able to explain how these heroes suddenly turn into 'lazy bums' when they get back home and cant find a job. Cant help but wonder if the problem is the unemployed soldier or the flood of cheap foreign labor the Neocons enrich themselves with? The neocons are filthy rich, in case anyone was wondering.

4. Hillary thinks she can win the general election by advocating for men to be able to enter little girls locker rooms, promotes Black Lies Matter, wants higher taxes on the working class, supports TPP and NAFTA and GATT and WTO? I guess I'll have a Coke.

the answer is simple, the democrat primary process is a scam. Its been corrupt forever, but this year the voters are finally understanding just how corrupt it is.

WINNER, WINNER! CHICKEN DINNER!

 

[BluesLegend]

1. If Hillary has won so many more votes than Sanders, then why are her negatives so much higher and her poll numbers against Trump so much lower as compared to Sanders numbers against Trump? Why dont her voters ever respond to the favorabillity polls? They seem to be hanging up on the pollsters at a much higher frequency than everyone elses voters.

2. Trump was everyone's friend back and well respected back when he gave money to both parties, but once he decided to run for President the media decided he was a clown, a bum and a moron. Is there a connection?

3. Neoconservatives and libertarians say they admire our heroic soldiers, sailors and airmen while they fight over seas, but no one seems to be able to explain how these heroes suddenly turn into 'lazy bums' when they get back home and cant find a job. Cant help but wonder if the problem is the unemployed soldier or the flood of cheap foreign labor the Neocons enrich themselves with? The neocons are filthy rich, in case anyone was wondering.

4. Hillary thinks she can win the general election by advocating for men to be able to enter little girls locker rooms, promotes Black Lies Matter, wants higher taxes on the working class, supports TPP and NAFTA and GATT and WTO? I guess I'll have a Coke.

Hillary is getting super delegate votes, which should not count. They are for special circumstances and aren't supposed to be used to artificially prop up an unpopular candidate. There is some cheating going on.

Super delegate votes are for sale, if you are a super delegate you cash in your vote for favors and kick backs. Welcome to America the land of corruption. Somewhere the king of England is thinking and you fought a revolutionary war because I was corrupt WTF?????

 

[SwimExpert]

Stop embarrassing yourself, mmk?

But I have fun on USMB, why would I want to leave?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Stop embarrassing yourself, mmk?

But I have fun on USMB, why would I want to leave?

Yeah, I think we all do, especially drunken sailors like me.

But this common misconception of what Occams Razor is is kind of a running joke among those who know better.

You arent helping yourself or your arguments by misusing it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Stop embarrassing yourself, mmk?

But I have fun on USMB, why would I want to leave?

Yeah, I think we all do, especially drunken sailors like me.

But this common misconception of what Occams Razor is is kind of a running joke among those who know better.

You arent helping yourself or your arguments by misusing it.

You're quite right that Occam's Razor is essentially abused and mistakenly inflated most of the time.