That's 100% correct. Gender and race are not "skills." You can try to back out now.
Well this is going to be a close one. Final NBC poll tied at 49% apiece
- Thread starter bullitpdq68
- Start date
This is the definition of a red herring in the actual discussion that was going on. We were talking about economic trends of the past. This study is about overprecision in economists predictions, a.k.a. the future (which, incidentally, didn't show that the predictions were wildly wrong, just that they were slightly over-precise in their predictions when a slightly wider range would have been better). Did you also know that a couple of the sources used in the study were from weather forecasting studies?
Also, a point of intellectual consistency, why are you trusting the expert economists who authored the study if you don't trust economists? Do you trust economists or do you not? Or do you only trust economists when their information matches what you want it to say? We are all guilty of this on occasion, of course.
Just so we are clear here: I am not saying that economists are perfect, or even great: I'm saying that not only do you not know what you're talking about in this instance; you are intellectually inconsistent in this instance; and you are an absolutely flawless example of the Dunning-Kruger effect on this subject (which we all are on at least some things).
But none of this means I can't have a discussion with you or that I dislike you in any way; on the contrary, as much as I disagree with your points of view and methods of argumentation, I greatly prefer an argument with a person that at least attempts to argue with words rather than memes far more often than not.
I can tell you this, the economists who told Trump cutting taxes during a time of economic prosperity will cause the economy to overheat were 100% correct.
But you are arguing with someone who says Trump has shown no cognitive decline whatsoever, so it’s like bashing your head against a wall trying to have a serious discussion.
But you are arguing with someone who says Trump has shown no cognitive decline whatsoever, so it’s like bashing your head against a wall trying to have a serious discussion.
It was a backhanded way of saying she didn’t earn her position on merit, but hey if you want to see something else more power to you.
I don’t trust the economist or even the Study I was pointing out I just used it as a counter to everyone just assuming the Economist are soothsayers!
Why do you not see it as being relevant? Everyone is referencing economists to back up their opinions that Trumps policies on the economy will be epic fails. I pointed out that economists are rarely right and hit about as often as TV psychics on their predictions.
Logically if the bases of your argument is founded on faulty opinions from economists then it’s very plausible your analysis is flawed.
Nah, it was a landslide. The people of America rejected the non-stop propaganda. Trump got over 55% of the less than $100K household vote. Anyone that buys groceries and gas knew the Biden/Obama regime was a complete failure, and it showed at the polls.
Yes they are communist at heart and want the Republic and Constitution abolished. Doing so would make it much easier for them to implement Parliamentary rule by the elites who control the Media, Corporations, Govt, Banking, etc. The masses would just continue to vote for their hand picked party members because they would have no choice or other option and then the elites would continue to pass laws that would have no constraint from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Prediction and past analysis are apples and oranges. I'm not good at predicting the outcome of Major League Baseball games; it's really tough since even the best teams still lose 35-40% of the time. But I can for sure look at the data from a past game and give a really good analysis as to why a team lost and why a team won. Should my analysis of past games be thrown out because I can't predict future games better than a coin flip?
This would make perfect sense if I were talking about predictions. But I wasn’t. Also, and I know I already mentioned this, you didn’t read the study very well.
