View Single Post
  #125  
Old 04-09-2019, 05:13 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
C'mon, Erimir. Show me where and when I predicted the things you have shoved into my mouth!

Post proof or retract!

There is a search function here. Use it, or I will!
Damn david, you only waited 11 minutes between those posts. I was eating dinner. Don't worry, I love quoting the words you would love to disavow and showing you to be dishonest and projecting like you're trying to beat Trump at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Actually, you little lying liar, I did not predict any of those things. I said those things were possible -- that we needed to wait and see. Even the possibility of these things were denied by many. I was more open-minded about the possibility that Trump would actually do some of the things that he said he would. I did not predict anything that you have shoved into my mouth, in your blatant and pathetic dishonesty.

I challenge you to show a single post in which I predicted any of these things.
Your posts do not at all sound like you're merely pointing out theoretical possibilities that others dismiss as impossibilities, but rather that you find many of these to be likely outcomes.

specious_reasons identified one of the two posts I was referring to. But just to make it clearer, here are the quotes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
[davidm predicted that Trump's] administration would not attack LGBT rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
davidm predicted that Trump would not appoint Scalias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I will add that I think Trump, if elected, will do nothing to impede gay or transgender rights and will not appoint Scalias to the Supreme Court.
Sure, you didn't say you were certain of these things. But they do not sound like you regard them as unlikely. "I think that Trump will do X" suggests you consider that at minimum more likely than not! But it usually implies more certainty than that. I'd say it counts as a prediction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
[davidm predicted] that Trump would be neutral* between Israel and Palestine.

*Or at least, probably no worse than Obama/Clinton
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Trump says he will be “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Hillary is an unabashed fan of the vile Bibi Netanyahu and best buds with the odious Henry Kissinger. Lesser of two evils: Trump.
It sure sounds like you're saying Trump will be better than Clinton on this issue. Being charitable, I put it as "or at least, probably no worse".
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
[davidm predicted that] Trump wouldn't try to gut entitlements while Democrats in Congress would be willing to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Trump has indicated, defying Republican dogma (as he has defied it on the Iraq war and free trade orthodoxy) that he has no interest in cutting entitlements. Hillary will try to cut them in her typical Clinton-style triangulating with Republicans, striking some kind of nonsense budget deal. This is because Hillary is not a New Deal Democrat, but rather a New Democrat (read: Republican lite). The first of the New Democrats (as opposed to the New Deal Democrats) was Bill Clinton, and the second was Barack Obama. Hillary aspires to be the third. The New Democrats have sold out the legacy of the four New Deal Democratic presidents (F.D.R., Truman, JFK and LBJ) and will continue to conspire with Republicans to betray and dismantle their legacy. Trump, I’m betting, won’t do that. Lesser of two evils: Trump.
Now, you could argue that you weren't predicting that Schumer or Pelosi or any particular Democrat would be willing to gut entitlements, but only that the "New Democrats" would. But either way you expressed it without hedges, you said a certain subset of Democrats "will" conspire with Republicans to cut entitlements. But given that no Democrats in Congress whatsoever voted for any of the GOP ACA repeal bills that would gut Medicaid, it would seem that either you were very much wrong in that prediction, or you were making a statement about a type of Democrat that doesn't hold any offices in which case why the fuck were you bothering to talk about it? If no Democrats in Congress met that description, who exactly would be the ones in Congress helping Clinton cut entitlements? It's laughable to suggest it wasn't a prediction about at least some Congressional Democrats.

Meanwhile, Trump was very much pushing any and all of those entitlement-gutting bills, so you very much lost that bet.

Again, did you say you were 100% certain? No. But you certainly seemed to be saying these were probable outcomes. In some cases, quite likely outcomes! As we know, people typically "bet" on things they regard as likely, not things they view as mere possibilities!

But if that's enough to save your case, then I'd note I never said Hillary Clinton was certain to win the election, so you have no basis for saying I was wrong about that! I only ever endorsed the 538 forecast (perhaps a little more optimistic on the basis of other forecasters tending to be more bullish on her chances), which always allowed a far from negligible chance of a Trump victory. And, at any rate, being wrong about one outcome (the binary outcome of Clinton or Trump) is not as bad as being wrong about many things.

BUT that's even taking you at face value and assuming these posts themselves are the only evidence! Even then, it's very bad for you. But I replied with arguments as to why these statements were wrong and you replied back, in ways that do not at all imply you were proposing these as mere possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Dismissing my list of all the ways that Trump may in fact be the lesser of two evils with respect to Clinton with :rolleyes: is pretty unpersuasive. In fact, I shall take that as your concession that you have no answer to these points.
I see no protestation that you were merely suggesting these were possibilities. In fact, you continue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I am simply pointing out that given what he has said on certain key issues, vs. what Clinton has said (which is often different from what she has said in the past), there is no reason to think that Clinton is necessarily the lesser of two evils on those particular issues.
If there's no reason to think that Clinton is the lesser of two evils, it certainly doesn't sound like you thought Trump was merely possibly the lesser, but that he was probably the lesser.

That's what you said at the time. A few days later you did add a bunch of hedges that were not present in your original post (and only the "lesser of two evils" post, not the one about Trump not appointing Scalias or impeding LGBT rights), but this was only after being challenged repeatedly by me, mickthinks, The Man, and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
No, indeed, even if you support the "lesser of two evils" voting idea, it's not at all clear who the lesser evil is here.
This is from the second post (the one that starts by saying Trump won't appoint Scalias). The plain meaning of saying it's not "at all clear" is that you think it's not a mere possibility that Trump is the lesser evil, but that there's a significant chance that he's not. Otherwise it would be at least somewhat clear that Clinton was the lesser evil.

I think it's pretty clear your original post was suggesting that Trump was at least probably the lesser of two evils on those particular issues (and possibly the lesser overall!). Yet you suggest it was merely to counter the idea that it was an impossibility. I don't think that's what was intended at all. And I don't think it's possible to maintain that you predicted none of those things, even under a strict interpretation of what counts as a prediction.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (04-09-2019), Kael (05-05-2019), The Man (04-09-2019)
 
Page generated in 0.24256 seconds with 11 queries