What is the most effective method of adjudicating the truth?

Originally posted by Its2016
So? If this election has told us anything, its that the United States of America and most of the world is incredibly dumb.

100 is the average iq. Ive spoken to people with 100 iqs. Average is a good description. Half the people, white priveleged people, are stupider than that.

"People are ****ing dumb" - George Carlin

I know, that's my point.

Originally posted by Its2016
Silver has an appauling anti Trump record since the primaries. He kept predicting Trump to lose. I think he hates Trump.

But he's probably right.

Originally posted by Surtur
But it's going down a slippery slope if people want to try to present their opinions as facts.

Who is going to win the election is an objective question, it's just difficult to answer.

May I ask what lead you to want to create this topic?

I've thought about this before. I'm also astounded by how many stupid people have outed themselves this election cycle, and it really shakes my faith in democracy.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
But he's probably right.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I know, that's my point.

Who will win ultimately comes down to opinion right now. We can't present it as fact. So I feel like you're asking for something that isn't truly possible.

You said the one guy is probably right that Trump will lose. Well okay, but that still isn't the truth though..no matter how many times in the past he has been right.

Originally posted by Its2016
But the Trump factor actually destroys his credibility.

It really doesn't. His model actually understates Hillary's probability of winning next to, say, Wang's at Princeton.

So, stupidity isnt true? Im not sure what the conclusion is.

The initial question was whether democracy was effective at arriving at the truth.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It really doesn't. His model actually understates Hillary's probability of winning next to, say, Wang's at Princeton.

The initial question was whether democracy was effective at arriving at the truth.

What do you define as truth? And how does this relate to Trump and the presidential race?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The initial question was whether democracy was effective at arriving at the truth.

If you want to put it like this then no I don't think it is. I think the entire point of democracy is the truth is irrelevant, what is perceived as the truth matters more.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What is the best way, if we ignore all issues of implementation, for a group of people to come to a decision on who is right?

Read peoples emails.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
About who is right, or how about who people prefer?

Who is right. But often it's who is right about who people prefer (.i.e. predicting election winners).

Some people are to dumb to see what is right in front of their eyes, they can't comprehend it, so they turn away and look for a shiny object in the room.

Originally posted by Its2016
Nate has constantly been anti Trump into not surviving at all. Hes won the nominee and not suffered in the polls at all. Even pussygate hasnt really harmed him so much.

What polls have you been looking at? Trump has collapsed in the polls following the video by all the polls conducted in Reality.

What do you define as truth? And how does this relate to Trump and the presidential race?

An objectively testable question, like "who will win X election" or "will global temperatures rise by at least Y degrees".

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What polls have you been looking at? Trump has collapsed in the polls following the video by all the polls conducted in Reality.

An objectively testable question, like "who will win X election" or "will global temperatures rise by at least Y degrees".

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What polls have you been looking at? Trump has collapsed in the polls following the video by all the polls conducted in Reality.

An objectively testable question, like "who will win X election" or "will global temperatures rise by at least Y degrees".

Originally posted by Its2016
none. I dont trust em.

So what do you trust? Your gut? Did your gut also tell you Romney was going to win? Was your gut able to predict 49 (or was it 50?) out of the 50 states in that election, like Silver's oh-so-liberal concept of statistics did?

Is that all you care about, who is going to win, not who is a corrupt piece of shit.

As a Hillary supporter you condone her campaign trashing Mexicans, blacks, muslims now?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So what do you trust? Your gut? Did your gut also tell you Romney was going to win? Was your gut able to predict 49 (or was it 50?) out of the 50 states in that election, like Silver's oh-so-liberal concept of statistics did?

I will say Trump will likely win FL, NV, OH and atleast one vote from Maine. He will win AZ, NC and every state below it, VA is a tossup, but is likely Hill territory. CO and NH are also tossups.

This puts both candidates 250-290

Originally posted by Its2016
My gut told me Obama would win almost all the states he did in 08. Iirc, I got every state right except Florida, which I deemed a tossup. For now i have close to no idea.

I will say Trump will likely win FL, NV, OH and atleast one vote from Maine. He will win AZ, NC and every state below it, VA is a tossup, but is likely Hill territory. CO and NH are also tossups.

This puts both candidates 250-290

And you arrived at this conclusion without looking at the polls?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
And you arrived at this conclusion without looking at the polls?