@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:Your gut take is not data though, I think that's the center of our disagreement. What quantifiable data did you use?
It was more a result of logic than data. But I think data shows that presidents usually make their big legislative achievements at the beginning of each term. And I think that data shows that when a president doesn't achieve much, the voters want to switch which party controls the White House.
Robert Gentel wrote:That's another outlandish prediction based on no data but wishful thinking.
I think Hugo Chavez is evidence that someone who panders to the working class at the expense of their country can sweep to power on the backs of working class loyalty.
Let's check back 20 years from now and see if I was right.
Robert Gentel wrote:This is not supported by data.
Data shows that Mr. Obama has not achieved any major legislation in the past six years.
Data shows that the voters had a strong urge to swap which party controls the White House.
Robert Gentel wrote:Obama's approval rating is high.
The voters still wanted to change which party controlled the White House.
Robert Gentel wrote:And not getting things done had little to do with guns and everything to do with hyper-partisanship.
That is incorrect. The early part of a president's term is a period when he can push legislation through congress. Had Mr. Obama used the beginning of his second term to push useful legislation, there are decent odds that he could have got something passed. But instead he pointlessly wasted the entire beginning of his second term attacking the NRA.
The alleged hyper partisanship is a myth that the Democrats push to excuse Mr. Obama's failings. The Republicans reached out to him after 2010 and tried to compromise. It ultimately failed because Mr. Obama went along with his hardliners and made demands that collapsed the negotiations.
And even after the 2013 gun control debacle, Mr. Obama had an opportunity to work with moderate Republicans on immigration reform. Again he ruined it by going with his extremists instead of moderates.
Robert Gentel wrote:That hyper-partisan gridlock is certainly a factor in this election but there is no data you can point to that ties it to gun control.
But I can. I can point to the entire beginning of his second term, which was the time when he had a chance to pass big legislation, being pointlessly wasted in attacks against the NRA.
There is no way to know the outcome if he had instead pushed for useful legislation, but if the energy that he used attacking the NRA had instead been used to try to pass useful legislation, his second term very likely would have been much more successful.
Robert Gentel wrote:Both terms were, other than the initial push to get the ACA passed.
There were other things achieved at the beginning of his first term. Bank bailout. Auto industry bailout. Economic stimulus package.
If he had tried to achieve something useful at the beginning of his second term, it is impossible to know how it would have turned out, but there are reasonable odds that he would have had more achievements. Maybe climate change legislation.
Robert Gentel wrote:There is no credible data making this a gun issue, you simply see all things through that lens.
Data shows that the entire early period of his second term, which was when he had a big chance of achieving legislation, was devoted entirely to attacking the NRA.
Robert Gentel wrote:Not desire for Trump, per-se. Desire to believe that enough Americans are so obsessed with guns that they would accept a candidate that they think would cause nuclear war just because of that single issue.
It has nothing to do with obsession with guns. It has to do with pointless waste of political capital leading to a lack of achievements.
Robert Gentel wrote:So did plenty of models that used literal coin flips to predict things (there are thousands that have predicted the last 5 presidents, simply because there are enough attempts that some will succeed). My point is that even when your prediction is right that does not validate the reasoning behind it. Plenty of predictions are serendipitously right without the underlying reasoning making any sense.
I'm not making thousands of variant predictions regarding these five presidential elections. I am making one single prediction that all five elections will go to the Republicans.
Let's check back 20 years from now and see if my single prediction was right.
Robert Gentel wrote:I don't.
How do you think Trump will react when China pushes their claim to all of the international waters of the South China Sea?
Do you really think he has the wisdom to stay out of a shooting war with China?
Robert Gentel wrote:But I do find it fascinating that you vote for someone that you think might cause nuclear war but that you think is better on gun rights (even when gun rights are not in any kind of real threat).
America's gun rights were under perilous threat. Hillary would have stacked the Supreme Court with justices who would have maliciously allowed the Second Amendment to be wantonly violated.
And she would have continued those horrible executive orders that put countless law-abiding people on the list of people prohibited from buying guns just because they are disabled. What would have been next, banning people because they wear glasses? Banning people with certain hair colors?
Trump will stack the Supreme Court with justices who will enforce the Second Amendment. And those horrendous executive orders will be overturned on his first day in office.
I'm not so sure I would say that Trump will "cause" a nuclear war. More that he will lack the wisdom to avoid it.
Robert Gentel wrote:They don't sound enjoyable. But hey, the fear of gun control must be pretty strong with you to prefer this fear (nuclear holocaust to maybe a more stringent background check). I find that nearly pathologically irrational. There are enough of you guys to ensure that gun rights are not going to be meaningfully threatened any time soon.
That more stringent background check was maliciously blocking law abiding people who were not supposed to be blocked.
We do have the power to prevent the federal government from passing more gun bans. But we don't have the power to stop an executive order, and we don't have the power to stop bad judges from being put on the courts.
