• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doug Jones win was 100MM years in the making

HowardBThiname said:
The article you linked to doesn't support the title of this thread.
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't mention Doug Jones and was written in 2012?

Sometimes, you have to apply something called 'thought' to reading an article. Then you have to 'interpret' the information and 'apply' it to the present situation. Generally, the information can be 'inferred' given other preexisting information that may be present in your brain, which may or may not be the case. If that preexisting information is NOT present, its not the fault of the author of the article, but rather a signal that you need to do more 'thinking' and 'gathering of information' to correctly interpret the article.

Sorry if I didn't spoonfeed it out to you.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because it doesn't mention Doug Jones and was written in 2012?
Click to expand...

No. Because it's focusing on nationwide, presidential elections. The factors put forth in that piece had no viable impact on the the Jones election.

Sometimes, you have to apply something called 'thought' to reading an article. Then you have to 'interpret' the information and 'apply' it to the present situation. Generally, the information can be 'inferred' given other preexisting information that may be present in your brain, which may or may not be the case. If that preexisting information is NOT present, its not the fault of the author of the article, but rather a signal that you need to do more 'thinking' and 'gathering of information' to correctly interpret the article.

Sorry if I didn't spoonfeed it out to you.
Click to expand...

That's just a lot of words explaining that you didn't understand the concept of the article.

You probably didn't even read it before you linked to it.

You're not going to get a better response, but the subject matter of the article simply doesn't apply here.
 
HowardBThiname said:
No. Because it's focusing on nationwide, presidential elections. The factors put forth in that piece had no viable impact on the the Jones election.



That's just a lot of words explaining that you didn't understand the concept of the article.

You probably didn't even read it before you linked to it.

You're not going to get a better response, but the subject matter of the article simply doesn't apply here.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the counties and turnout that voted for Jones.

Actually, scratch that. Stay immersed in your ignorance. Its easier that way.
 
Threegoofs said:
Take a look at the counties and turnout that voted for Jones.

Actually, scratch that. Stay immersed in your ignorance. Its easier that way.
Click to expand...

The article is bull****, pure and simple. It was written by an oceanographer who is trying to link the rich soil of the what was once termed the "Black Belt" with blacks who live there today and vote democratic in Presidential elections. Problem is, rich soil exists in formations all over the world, and blacks do not necessarily inhabit those locations. It simply does not follow that sedimentary deposits formed millions of years ago are the cause of blacks voting for democrats. That's just ludicrous.

I find the author's stretch of the imagination to border on racialism -- and, frankly, it's uncomfortable to read.

Besides, his theory failed in 2016.

I stand by my statement that you didn't read the article. Had you done so, you'd know it's nothing more than ruminations of an oceanographer that are highly questionable.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The article is bull****, pure and simple. It was written by an oceanographer who is trying to link the rich soil of the what was once termed the "Black Belt" with blacks who live there today and vote democratic in Presidential elections. Problem is, rich soil exists in formations all over the world, and blacks do not necessarily inhabit those locations. It simply does not follow that sedimentary deposits formed millions of years ago are the cause of blacks voting for democrats. That's just ludicrous.

I find the author's stretch of the imagination to border on racialism -- and, frankly, it's uncomfortable to read.

Besides, his theory failed in 2016.

I stand by my statement that you didn't read the article. Had you done so, you'd know it's nothing more than ruminations of an oceanographer that are highly questionable.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Stick to stuff that doesn’t require you to use logic and make correlations.

The articles premise doesn’t make sense because rich soils exist in other places where blacks don’t exist? That’s hilarious, and what I’d expect from a middle schooler trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary!

You’d really hate to see the one that correlates slavery with death rates in contemporary America.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Stick to stuff that doesn’t require you to use logic and make correlations.

The articles premise doesn’t make sense because rich soils exist in other places where blacks don’t exist? That’s hilarious, and what I’d expect from a middle schooler trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary!
Click to expand...

The entire premise of that article is middle school-ish, and you have yet to tell us how it pertains to the Jones election. You just trotted it out and then ran away.

You’d really hate to see the one that correlates slavery with death rates in contemporary America.
Click to expand...

The article does not correlate slavery with death rates in contemporary America. Now, you're just making me laugh.

It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what the article is saying.

Instead of admitting your mistake, you're just going to dig in your heels and double down on a ludicrous idea.

Fascinating.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The entire premise of that article is middle school-ish, and you have yet to tell us how it pertains to the Jones election. You just trotted it out and then ran away.



The article does not correlate slavery with death rates in contemporary America. Now, you're just making me laugh.

It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what the article is saying.

Instead of admitting your mistake, you're just going to dig in your heels and double down on a ludicrous idea.

Fascinating.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t show death rates. I guess you have a hard time with reading comprehension as well as correlation.

This one does:

Patterns Of Death In The South Still Show The Outlines Of Slavery | FiveThirtyEight
 
Threegoofs said:
It doesn’t show death rates. I guess you have a hard time with reading comprehension as well as correlation.

This one does:

Patterns Of Death In The South Still Show The Outlines Of Slavery | FiveThirtyEight
Click to expand...

Quit trying to deflect. I never said anything about patterns of slavery in the South and death rates. Besides, 538 is quite reputable in their stats.

That has nothing to do with the junk science you posted in the OP.

If you can find a peer-reviewed study that backs up that bogus premise, I'll be happy to take a look at it. But the author of the OP article seems to have been on crack when he/she wrote it. Just the fact that Trump won the 2016 election debunks that article's premise. But then, to add insult to injury, you tried to tie the Jones election to it.

Unbelievable.
 
calamity said:
It does if you think.
Click to expand...

98d851ea84d34db4d016d6e9e915aeb2.jpg
 
calamity said:
It does if you think.
Click to expand...

So, you believe there's a link between sedimentary development during the Paleozoic Era and the election of democratic presidents in 2008 and 2012? And, you somehow further think that link, although it skipped 2016, which blows the authors pseudoscience, was responsible for Jones beating Moore?

Fascinating.

Truly fascinating.
 
HowardBThiname said:
So, you believe there's a link between sedimentary development during the Paleozoic Era and the election of democratic presidents in 2008 and 2012? And, you somehow further think that link, although it skipped 2016, which blows the authors pseudoscience, was responsible for Jones beating Moore?

Fascinating.

Truly fascinating.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point
 
HowardBThiname said:
Go ahead and explain the point to all of us then.

I'm dying to hear this.

I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

100 million years ago, highly fertile soil was laid down in a low sea bed. Said soil then allowed for conditions ripe to plant various forms of agricultural products, most notably cotton. Cotton required millions of slaves, which early Americans forcibly imported to the region from Africa. Two days ago, the descendants of those African slaves voted for Doug Jones.

Is that explanation simple enough for you to follow?
 
calamity said:
100 million years ago, highly fertile soil was laid down in a low sea bed. Said soil then allowed for conditions ripe to plant various forms of agricultural products, most notably cotton. Cotton required millions of slaves, which early Americans forcibly imported to the region from Africa. Two days ago, the descendants of those African slaves voted for Doug Jones.

Is that explanation simple enough for you to follow?
Click to expand...

But...but.... Trump won in 2016!

Duh!
 
calamity said:
100 million years ago, highly fertile soil was laid down in a low sea bed. Said soil then allowed for conditions ripe to plant various forms of agricultural products, most notably cotton. Cotton required millions of slaves, which early Americans forcibly imported to the region from Africa. Two days ago, the descendants of those African slaves voted for Doug Jones.

Is that explanation simple enough for you to follow?
Click to expand...

You missed one little thing -- the article wasn't about correlation -- it was about causation. You simply listed the events in order, the question is - do you believe the sedimentary formation of 100 million years ago really had any influence on the Jones/Moore election? And why the causation took a noticeable skip in 2016?

The article is pseudoscience at its worst. The OP is an even more ridiculous anti-science suggestion.
 
HowardBThiname said:
You missed one little thing -- the article wasn't about correlation -- it was about causation. You simply listed the events in order, the question is - do you believe the sedimentary formation of 100 million years ago really had any influence on the Jones/Moore election? And why the causation took a noticeable skip in 2016?

The article is pseudoscience at its worst. The OP is an even more ridiculous anti-science suggestion.
Click to expand...

LOL.

You think the article was about causation?

Geez. Thats so profoundly stupid I can’t even...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom