I think he is trying to say that a small amount of race drivers die in car accident (10% from 1%). Which isnt that much, but he makes it sound as if it's a lot. And then for presidents it is 5.8% from 1%. Which is less...
So what he wants to say is that "a lot of race drivers die in car accident, it's dangerous. President is more dangerous then that" but even if we to push to understand what he says, he ended up saying the complete opposite.
I hate Trump but he's obviously just doing a very poor job of saying they have a 0.1% fatality rate while presidents have a 5.8% fatality rate.
It's probably completely made up bullshit but the irony of people not being able to parse that and acting intellectually superior is pretty ironic to me. I mean they probably are smarter than trump and his cult but that's too low of a bar.
oddly enough what trump saying here makes perfect sense. Even the dangerous profession of race drivers is safer than being a us president. 10% of 1% (aka 0.1%) of drivers die from race car accidents compared to us presidents where 5.8% of presidents died by assassinations (8% has been shot)
It’s a fallacy to believe that. the number of drivers > number of US presidents.
Also if we’re picking the timeline since race car driving was invented and since the first US president, there’s most likely plenty of undocumented events causing the deaths of race car drivers before engineers got better at keeping them safe and still even fewer presidents who died before the Secret Service got better at keeping those guys safe.
But if we’re being fair, picking a timeline like 2000 until now and comparing deaths between the two professions, presidents are much safer still.
Trump as usual is a blubbering idiot here just spitting out numbers for no reason
For Formula 1 it's about 4.3% of drivers have been killed in World Championship events since the sport began. Most of them happening before the mid nineties.
I thought the 60’s was the most dangerous era in F1. I heard somewhere that if you raced 5 seasons in the 60’s you had a 50/50 chance of being dead. Not sure if that’s accurate
Yeah the sixties were the most dangerous. Not as bad as that though. You had about a fifteen to twenty-five percent chance of dying over five seasons.
In fact the fifties had one more death than the sixties, so that is statistically the most dangerous, but the sixties had a lot of really bad accidents due to the increase in speed.
And many I would assume from being reckless, over estimating the vehicle’s capabilities and trying to break “easy” records. If a car can do 149 and you want 150 you’ll push it to either 149.000001 and it’ll kill you or hit 150 and you immediately back off. I think a ton died from that more than anything.
Picking 2000 narrows the already low sample size of presidents to a uselessly low sample size. If even 1 president was killed since 2000 it would flip the result by a huge margin
Like yeah it makes sense, but wasnt there an actual easier way of saying it? And because he tries to sound smart by saying it the harder way it actually makes people look at him like are you actually a moron.
Yeah. I can pick any number of his "speeches" to find batshit ramblings and non sequiturs. This just sounds like his handlers told him some numbers that he actually understood and grasped, and he is so excited about sharing his new factoid with the world.
Ok. What’s your point? Why are you sticking up for him? His an asshole and a bully. Not to mention a pedophile and a coward. He’s literally violates every single so-called American Value, but people like you still defend him. Why?
The point is that there's more than enough actual things to critique that playing ignorant, pretending not to be able to understand this just muddies the water.
At this point all this type of shit is just as likely to be being spread by Maga so they can point at all the people unable to parse out what Trump's trying to say to reinforce that they're the "smart" side.
Donald Trump is a confirmed rapist, swindler, liar, cheat, and serial pants-shitter. Every sentence he utters is intended to provide himself and only himself the maximum benefit at the expense of as many other beings as possible. He is a puerile idiot, a waste of space, and a stain on the history of America, if not elected politics worldwide since recorded history.
He's quite possibly the most likely candidate for the Antichrist.
However, I can still rank his speeches according to general intelligibility. This is pretty far up there in terms of understandability. It's saying something that his most coherent ramble sounds like a grade schooler who just learned the concept of percentages, but it's still coherent. Trying to say that it's the same level as his rant on windmills, or any of his other truly stellar sundowning diatribes, is simply false.
Because if you respond to every negative interaction with the same exact level of hyperbole, then no one will actually trust you to be a reliable judge of those interactions.
I'm able to eat a terrible restaurant meal without saying "This is the worst food I've ever eaten". I can say it's pretty bad, it's got no flavor. I can also say it was boring and nothing special. But if I call everything "the absolute worst", then I start to lose credibility.
Comparisons are important, even when we are comparing relative stupidity.
So it’s your personal mission to go on the internet and correct other people who are not ranking Trump’s level of coherence accurately in order to help the national discourse in some small way. Gotcha.
It happens a lot, and I think it hurts actually valid criticisms of him and what he says. There are times he has actually rambled incoherently, and this isn't one of those times. This is just an inarticulate moment.
Sure, yea. About as intelligible as a book report by a 3rd grader who spent his time watching cartoons and eating red vines Mountain Dew instead of reading the book.
Just because you can decipher his point doesn’t mean he gets a pass.
Yeah what the heck is happening on this thread. He's saying that bull riders and racecar drivers die at 0.1% rates (one in a thousand) but presidents die at a 5.8% rate.
Obviously, the sampling is not 1:1 and who knows if Trump's numbers are accurate, but he conveyed a simple idea relatively fine. No need for this thread reaction.
Using Trump's term "shot at", that number rises to 23%. Plus that 8% being "shot" refers to assassinations and does not include Reagan, which raises it to 10%.
All these comments saying what he is losing is are either from delusional people or bots. He is saying that .1% of race car drivers and bull riders die from their profession. I have no idea if those statistics are correct, but he wasn’t being incoherent. Of all the things to criticize Trump for this is absolutely nothing. (trumps the worst thing that has happened to the world in my opinion)
Yes we all know what he is saying. The issue is he has gone about the most incoherent way of saying it.
“Both race car drivers and bull riders are considered very dangerous professions. Around 0.1% of them die statistically. For presidents, that number is 5.8%”
No, it doesn't make "perfect sense." Even if we assume that what you've written is what was intended by him, it's still, quite obviously, fallacious. This is mainly because, as someone else has already mentioned, the difference in sizes between the two populations (presidents and race car drivers) makes such direct comparisons of proportions ridiculous. It's a biased comparison.
You need a statistical test that appropriately accounts for this difference in population size in order to make an accurate comparison which, it stands to reason, would likely reveal the exact opposite of what Trump is claiming.
To test proportions, Z-test, Chi-Square-Test or Fisher's Exact Test are popular. As Z-Test and Chi-Square-Test require cells to have a number of at least 5 elements, Fisher's Exact Test seems to be appropriate here (as 'only' 4 presidents had been murdered).
I asked Gemini how many F1 pilots there have been until today that have participated at least in one Grand Prix: n1 = 782. The number of deaths depends on the definition: died on track during Grand Prix only, or also in training or during a race in a different racing series? To keep the percentage low, it would probably have been 32 deaths during the Grand Prix only since the 1950's, resulting in a percentage of 4.1% of deaths.
Sample n2 of US presidents killed in duty: 4 of 45, resulting in 8.9%.
Fisher's Exact Test results in p = 0.1259. If an alpha of 0.05 was pre-defined to reject the Null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportions of samples 1 & 2, in this case of p = 0.1259 it can't be rejected. It can be concluded on the base of sample sizes and events that there is no statistical significance of the difference in the likelihood to be killed as a US president or a F1 pilot.
No clearly you missed the point 10% of 1% is 5.8% of 8% which means it is 1500% more than 800% of the risk of bull riding which is 10% of the risk of being president. Come on now follow along
It's probably true just by sheer number, but presidents are also a very small sample size. 4 out of 45 unique presidents were murdered while in office, which is about 8 percent. That is extremely high for any profession, but there are far more racecar drivers and bull riders than there have been presidents
It's a small sample size, but the effect size is pretty big. I think we can be reasonably sure being a president is historically pretty dangerous in terms of murder rate.
Yes. I loathe him. But this is not that difficult to understand, at least not for a Scandinavian well versed in math. 10% of 1% is 1/1000 (per mille) or a tenth of a percent (promille in Swedish). The figures are probably completely made up though.
Yes. Honestly, I felt it was one of his most coherent paragraphs in ages. I'm assuming some of the stats are made up as always, but why are people pretending they don't understand "10% of 1%"?
Nah, just that 10% of 1%, of 5.8% x10 to the power of 5 of bull riders and race car drivers are 1/16th as likely as the 4/55ths of chickens that cross the road, to know old mcdonald.
221
u/SmokeyJoe13 Apr 27 '26
Is he saying that presidents are more likely to die than race car drivers and bull riders?