You could make points without calling the other person naive. No need to make the internet a worse place.
As far as “every available metric” goes, you’re talking polls, and polls are garbage. Every poll had Clinton winning in late October 2016.
And we’re in an unprecedented portion of politics in American history, so bringing up historical measurements doesn’t convince me like you think it would.
You could make points without calling the other person naive. No need to make the internet a worse place.
As far as “every available metric” goes, you’re talking polls, and polls are garbage. Every poll had Clinton winning in late October 2016.
And we’re in an unprecedented portion of politics in American history, so bringing up historical measurements doesn’t convince me like you think it would.
More Reddit-y here by the day…
Looks a lot like the propaganda trolls got tired of arguing with each other and branched out here.
We will see who did the proper analysis in 4 months time. I’m really hoping it won’t be me. Unfortunately, I am also certain that I am correct.
I’m not certain at all, which scares me all the same. Tho the last ten years still hasn’t beaten the hope out of me, so I’ve got that much going.
I don’t want to kill your hope. I don’t share it, but maybe you can muster enough for both of us.
A sure way to know an unreliable source
Lol exactly, no one knows the future. That’s the problem with inductive reasoning and the philosophical idea of the absurd.
We’ll see won’t we?
Yes, I guess we will find out if you’re the world’s only legitimate soothsayer with an outcome you’ve predicted that has 50/50 odds of coming true.
That’s not how odds work. The fact there are only two outcomes does not mean the odds of each of those outcomes occurring is the same…
Yes, the braindead thing you’re saying you can predict the future. As a remotely reasonable person, I dispute this laughable idea.