Trump's First Year

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Trump's First Year

Postby burrrton » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:32 pm

Until you can come up with a better argument RD, I'm done.

Good, because frankly you sound like a fool.

Jewish people get elected every year to high office literally all over the country, and you act like that doesn't count because they haven't yet been elected to an office to which only 38 people in the history of our country have been elected.

Even if we'd expect perfect *statistical* representation based on *current* population (and we shouldn't, for various reasons), it still might not have happened. It's too small a sample.

Stop talking like a dick when it's obvious to everyone reading this your argument is ridiculous.
User avatar
Posts: 3293
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Trump's First Year

Postby RiverDog » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:51 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Until you can come up with a better argument RD, I'm done. This was never an argument about a general bias against Jewish politicians as you seem to be trying to make it, this was strictly a debate concerning the presidency where there is enough of a bias against Jewish folk to cost the points needed to win the highest office in the land.

The problem I have with the argument that you are making is the litmus test that you have chosen, ie POTUS. It is not mathematically valid because the sample size is just too small. There have only been 45 candidates elected POTUS in the entire history of the country and the elections occur just once every 4 years, once every 8 if you want to throw out incumbents running for re-election. That's simply not a large enough sampling to draw any conclusions from one way or another. You could pick scores of demographic groups...Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, women, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, all that have never had a person from their group elected POTUS, and it still wouldn't change my argument about using it as as evidence of a bias.

That's why I suggested using Senators, as it's the closest thing to a Presidential election and the population is so much larger.

It probably is time to call this argument to an end. We're just talking in circles now. Neither one of us has been successful in changing the other's mind.
User avatar
Posts: 8326
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338


Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest