Are Trumppers still delusional about the PP’s popularity ?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Into the Night
Contributor
Argument from randU fallacy. Random numbers are not data.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Trump's approval rating by state as of mid-May 2026
Trump's approval rating remains a net negative in polling from several aggregators, with the cost of living, gas prices, and the Iran war at the forefront of the overall dissatisfaction.
Overall, President Trump's approval numbers still fluctuate between 38% and 40% disapproval across polls, mirroring the state-level numbers: one state is still below 20%, with a only few near 55%.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
"Argument from RandU fallacy" (or "randU fallacy") is not a standard or recognized logical fallacy in formal logic, philosophy, rhetoric, debate theory, statistics, or any academic catalog of fallacies.
You won't find it in lists from sources like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fallacy websites, textbooks, or debate handbooks.
What it actually is: The term was coined by a user named "Into the Night" on niche online debate forums such as Just Plain Politics and Debate Politics, with usage appearing in threads since at least ~2018 and continuing into 2025–2026.
Examples of how it's used in those forums:
- Dismissing poll numbers.
- Rejecting statistics.
Into the Night
Contributor
Argument from randU fallacy.
Into the Night
Contributor
Denial of logic.
Buzzword fallacies (standard logic, recognized, formal logic, debate theory, academic catalog of fallacies).
Redefinition fallacies (philosophy<->logic, rhetoric<->logic, statistical mathematics<->logic).
Denial of random number mathematics.
The Argument from randU fallacy occurs when someone uses or quotes numbers made up in someone's head or by using an algorithm made up in someone's head.
Buzzword fallacies (internet encyclopedia of philosophy, fallacy website, debate handbook).
Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to quote every book. Argument of ignorance fallacy.
News polls are just random numbers, Zombie. They are completely meaningless.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Nothing in this response changes the core facts stated earlier:
- There is still no entry for "Argument from randU fallacy" (or "randU fallacy") in any recognized catalog of logical fallacies, philosophy, statistics, or debate theory.
- The only places it appears are forum posts by Into the Night.
- The name itself remains a private pun on the old IBM RANDU pseudorandom number generator (a famously flawed 1960s algorithm that produced visible patterns instead of true randomness). Into the Nigh has repurposed "randU" to mean "random + unknown" = any number you don't like.
Professional pollsters publish their exact questionnaire, sampling frame, weighting methodology, and margin of error. You can critique those methods (and people do, legitimately), but labeling the entire output "numbers made up in someone's head" is simply a way to wave away inconvenient data without engaging it.In short
It is still not a recognized fallacy in standard logic, philosophy, rhetoric, or statistics.
Into the Night's reply is nonsensical.
His illogic has never escaped the small forum ecosystem where he invented it, and is still the only known purveyor of it..
It's a home-grown debating shorthand that functions as a universal dismiss button for any statistic he dislikes.
Into the Night
Contributor
Buzzword fallacies (recognized catalog of logical fallacies, debate theory).
Redefinition fallacies (philosophy<->logic, statistical mathematics<->logic).
Repetition fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Denial of random number mathematics.
No, it's a randU. Attempting to use a randU as 'data' is a fallacy.
Attempt to justify randU. Pivot fallacy to void. Buzzword fallacies (professional pollsters, weighting methodology, margin of error, sampling frame). Denial of statistical mathematics. Denial of random number mathematics. Go learn what 'margin of error' means and how to calculate it.
Random numbers are not 'data'.
Buzzword fallacies (standard logic). Redefinition fallacies (philosophy<->logic, rhetoric<->logic, statistical mathematics<->logic).
Inversion fallacy.
Denial of logic. Buzzword fallacies (escape, small forum ecosystem). Denial of statistical mathematics.
Buzzword fallacies (debating shorthand, universal dismiss button).
Redefinition fallacies (statistical mathematics<->logic, human emotion<->statistical mathematics).
You can't justify any data that way, Zombie. Random numbers are not data.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
This is your same template, now on autopilot:
- Gish gallop of fallacy labels (20+ in one post): “Buzzword fallacies”, “Redefinition fallacies”, “Repetition fallacy”, “Argument of the Stone fallacy”, “Inversion fallacy”, “Pivot fallacy to void”, “Denial of logic”, “Denial of random number mathematics”, etc. Many of these are either his own inventions or wildly stretched versions of real fallacies.
- Re-assertion of the private definition: Any number whose full methodology he hasn’t personally verified right now = “randU” = “numbers made up in someone’s head” = “random numbers” that “are not data”.
- Blanket dismissal of all statistics: Professional pollsters, BLS, margin of error, sampling frame, weighting — all waved away as “buzzword fallacies”. He demands you “go learn what ‘margin of error’ means” while simultaneously refusing to accept the standard statistical definition.
- Self-referential irony:
- Accuses “Repetition fallacy” while literally repeating the same randU claim he has posted hundreds of times.
- Calls standard logic terms “buzzword fallacies” while inventing new ones on the fly.
- Claims “Denial of statistical mathematics” while denying that published, peer-reviewed, replicable statistical methods produce data.
Your reply isn’t an argument — it’s a universal dismissal dressed up in fallacy cosplay. Every time someone cites a number you doesn’t like, out comes the randU stamp. That’s why the term has stayed confined to this tiny corner of the internet and never escaped into actual textbooks, encyclopedias, or academic discussion.
Nothing in your post changes that assessment. It just confirms the pattern.
Into the Night
Contributor
Inversion fallacy.
Denial of logic. You can't blame your fallacies on anybody else, Zombie.
Denial of random number mathematics.
Random numbers are not data. It is YOU that denies statistical mathematics and random number mathematics.
Denial of statistical mathematics.
Attempt to justify buzzwords.
You can't blame your repetition on me or anybody else, Zombie.
Denial of logic. Buzzwords aren't 'logical terms'. Buzzword fallacy. Logic isn't 'terms'.
Mathematics is not a publication.
Mathematics does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in mathematics.
Statistical mathematics does not produce data. Denial of statistical mathematics.
I don't claim made up numbers like you do.
You can't blame your fallacies on anybody else, Zombie.
Buzzword fallacy (actual numbers, methodology).
Denial of logic.
Denial of statistical mathematics.
Denial of random number mathematics.
Inversion fallacy. Buzzword fallacies (cosplay, universal dismissal).
Random numbers are not data, Zombie. You can't make them data.
Buzzword fallacies (actual textbook, academic discussion).
Void argument fallacy. Denial of random number mathematics.
Inversion fallacy.
Whining gets you nowhere, Zombie.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Ad nauseum.
No new reasoning, no engagement with actual polling methodology. Pure repetition. Nothing has changed, and the term remains exactly what I described: an imaginary construct that exists only in this tiny ecosystem, and is only cited by Into the Night.
Into the Night
Contributor
Inversion fallacy.
Random numbers are not data. Denial of statistical mathematics.
Inversion fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Denial of logic.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Argument by repetition, also known as proof by assertion or argumentum ad nauseam, is a logical fallacy where a claim is repeatedly stated in hopes that it will be accepted as true, rather than providing evidence to support it.
Unlike your made-up nonsense, this is a recognized logical fallacy, and you are guilty of it.
Identifying with the democrat party as "we" is plain insanity. These people have no ideas other than orange man bad and every time they do come up with an idea it's a massive boondoggle fail.
You people are unwell.
And no "removal" isn't a real possibility. The Senate needs to do that and there's zero chance. This just shows how detached from reality you are to think such a thing.
Very unwell.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Trump Just Hit a Pathetic New Low: A new poll from The New York Times and Siena University shows that the president is massively unpopular—and that voters hate the Iran war.
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
مرگ بر آمریکا
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی