|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 16 2016 06:44 mahrgell wrote:
Yeah, lets just limit definitions until you are right. Sorry, but the AI this discussion was originating from could easily use a hardware RNG. And if you consider this part of this AI, it is certainly not deterministic anymore.
And how do you know the hardware RNG is deterministic? Are you god? Did you create electrophysics?
We assume they are not deterministic, but we can not know. Because you can never know. Only if you know the future can you know whether something is truly deterministic. If you know anything about math (not numeric but actual math) I have a simple thought experiment which can visualize the idea behind determinism.
But even if we assume we have a theoretical truly non-deterministic hardware RNG that we can use, we still have to find a way to actually use it for anything useful. The thing with our computers is we want them to be deterministic. We have no idea how to program with non-determinism because it doesnt make any sense to do it.
If you want to use non-determinism somewhere you first need to have a good idea how you are going to use it and for what. In what way would non-determinism help you build your AI?
|
On August 16 2016 06:44 mahrgell wrote:
Yeah, lets just limit definitions until you are right. Sorry, but the AI this discussion was originating from could easily use a hardware RNG. And if you consider this part of this AI, it is certainly not deterministic anymore.
The original discussion was about an AI deciding what is factual and objective, and the assumption that an AI can simply evaluate on its own what "non-biased" means.
Which, if you want RNG, is true, an AI can create its own definition about what bias is. But only if you're willing to accept an result that the AI comes up with.
|
Hungary176 Posts
On August 16 2016 06:41 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:37 Evotroid wrote:On August 16 2016 06:34 RoomOfMush wrote:On August 16 2016 06:30 Evotroid wrote:
Okay, I am way out of my depth with this philosophic bs. I speak of determinism in the practical sense. Eg.: a machine that in practice always gives the same answer, and one that does not to the same input. And remember, we are speaking AI in the practical world, not soul in philosophy class. We develop an AI, and want it to have indeterministic properties. After we have built the AI we test it to see how well it works, and find out it does not, because it is deterministic. We get new hardware on warranty, or file a bugreport, no one is gonna sit around with open mouth babbling about "ohh but you can never know, maybe if we just test it for 5 more years!" Well then you use the word "determinism" incorrectly. Because that is not what determinism means. You mean "randomness" but that is not non-determinism. If you really want to continue this discussion you should first read up on the definitions of the words you are using. Is wiki allowed in this discussion? en.wikipedia.orgAlso, see edit on my prev post. It seems wikipedia has it right: Show nested quote +a deterministic algorithm is an algorithm which, given a particular input, will always produce the same output Please show me a computer program (in code) which is not deterministic. If you can do that you will probably get a million $$$ for that.
This is what the earlier example with the 1% error rate was about, god I wish I could find the source right now :D the mere existence of error correcting rams, and the need for them show that our machines do not always produce the same output, even if we intend them to.
And this whole thread derailment (admittedly instigated by me), you still not showed anything that supports the notion, that we cannot make AI that can teach itself to solve a given problem. Nor did you show anything, that your definition of determinism has anything to do with our ability of creating one.
But so far I call it quits for now, it seems we are talking past each other. Maybe we should migrate this to the ask/answer questions thread, if you think you can show me a more complete view of your reasoning.
Just so I do not seem a liar, found the source (about 1% of clients failing the test, not all clients failing 1% of tests) "Your computer is broken" section
|
On August 16 2016 06:52 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:44 mahrgell wrote:
Yeah, lets just limit definitions until you are right. Sorry, but the AI this discussion was originating from could easily use a hardware RNG. And if you consider this part of this AI, it is certainly not deterministic anymore. And how do you know the hardware RNG is deterministic? Are you god? Did you create electrophysics? We assume they are not deterministic, but we can not know. Because you can never know. Only if you know the future can you know whether something is truly deterministic. If you know anything about math (not numeric but actual math) I have a simple thought experiment which can visualize the idea behind determinism. But even if we assume we have a theoretical truly non-deterministic hardware RNG that we can use, we still have to find a way to actually use it for anything useful. The thing with our computers is we want them to be deterministic. We have no idea how to program with non-determinism because it doesnt make any sense to do it. If you want to use non-determinism somewhere you first need to have a good idea how you are going to use it and for what. In what way would non-determinism help you build your AI?
Oh, an "this world is all deterministic" philosopher... Cool thing, but makes any further discussion pointless
|
On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:22 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do. There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win. Could someone who was going to vote for Trump but considered the Khan comments to be unfit of a president be convinced to switch back to Trump? I would find it hard to believe anything Trump says could appease those sort of people. And they are the people he needs to win back. Yes, time heals all wounds. The issue is we know the media isn't going to change in 3 months, so it falls to him to avoid these traps that then get printed in every newspaper and run and commented on every cable news station for days. Once the debates get going, the race takes a different tone. So your answer to the question "what can Trump do to win back voters" is 'wait until they forget all the terrible things he said'? Hardly a convincing strategy.
You posed the specific hypothetical of what he could do to win someone who was turned off by the Khan comments. There isn't a time machine to undo it. Think about the same question but for Hillary. How does Hillary win someone who wanted to vote for her except for that whole email thing? There's nothing but wait until it stops being an issue because built into the question is that that specific thing is the foil for the person's vote.
On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:
As for your believe that the debates will change the game. You might want to tell Trump that since he hardly seems confident in them himself.
You misunderstand, I'm not predicting debate winners, but that was a nice edgy jab. That leg of the presidential race, that close to he election, takes a different tone as people are forced to at least pretend to cover substance as they always have in the past. With time for people to move on from the latest headline "comments," Trump can win support as people are exposed to his strong message, exactly like the times he's made gains previously.
The goal is not get everyone to love you. The goal is to get a group of people who think you're the best choice on the ballot, and make sure that the fraction of those people that are enthusiastic enough to actually vote are distributed in a way that wins you 270 electoral votes, i.e., more than the fraction of your opponent's supporters that are enthusiastic enough to vote.
|
On August 16 2016 06:57 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:52 RoomOfMush wrote:On August 16 2016 06:44 mahrgell wrote:
Yeah, lets just limit definitions until you are right. Sorry, but the AI this discussion was originating from could easily use a hardware RNG. And if you consider this part of this AI, it is certainly not deterministic anymore. And how do you know the hardware RNG is deterministic? Are you god? Did you create electrophysics? We assume they are not deterministic, but we can not know. Because you can never know. Only if you know the future can you know whether something is truly deterministic. If you know anything about math (not numeric but actual math) I have a simple thought experiment which can visualize the idea behind determinism. But even if we assume we have a theoretical truly non-deterministic hardware RNG that we can use, we still have to find a way to actually use it for anything useful. The thing with our computers is we want them to be deterministic. We have no idea how to program with non-determinism because it doesnt make any sense to do it. If you want to use non-determinism somewhere you first need to have a good idea how you are going to use it and for what. In what way would non-determinism help you build your AI? Oh, an "this world is all deterministic" philosopher... Cool thing, but makes any further discussion pointless
Determinism is a philosophical topic. How can you try to talk about determinism and not get philosophical? I asked you how you would use non-determinism to do anything useful with it. Even if we assumed you had it, what would it do for you? What do you use a truly random number for?
On August 16 2016 06:56 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:41 RoomOfMush wrote:On August 16 2016 06:37 Evotroid wrote:On August 16 2016 06:34 RoomOfMush wrote:On August 16 2016 06:30 Evotroid wrote:
Okay, I am way out of my depth with this philosophic bs. I speak of determinism in the practical sense. Eg.: a machine that in practice always gives the same answer, and one that does not to the same input. And remember, we are speaking AI in the practical world, not soul in philosophy class. We develop an AI, and want it to have indeterministic properties. After we have built the AI we test it to see how well it works, and find out it does not, because it is deterministic. We get new hardware on warranty, or file a bugreport, no one is gonna sit around with open mouth babbling about "ohh but you can never know, maybe if we just test it for 5 more years!" Well then you use the word "determinism" incorrectly. Because that is not what determinism means. You mean "randomness" but that is not non-determinism. If you really want to continue this discussion you should first read up on the definitions of the words you are using. Is wiki allowed in this discussion? en.wikipedia.orgAlso, see edit on my prev post. It seems wikipedia has it right: a deterministic algorithm is an algorithm which, given a particular input, will always produce the same output Please show me a computer program (in code) which is not deterministic. If you can do that you will probably get a million $$$ for that. This is what the earlier example with the 1% error rate was about, god I wish I could find the source right now :D the mere existence of error correcting rams, and the need for them show that our machines do not always produce the same output, even if we intend them to. And this whole thread derailment (admittedly instigated by me), you still not showed anything that supports the notion, that we cannot make AI that can teach itself to solve a given problem. Nor did you show anything, that your definition of determinism has anything to do with our ability of creating one. But so far I call it quits for now, it seems we are talking past each other. Maybe we should migrate this to the ask/answer questions thread, if you think you can show me a more complete view of your reasoning.
The chance is definitely not 1% or nobody would ever use a computer. It is a very very very very small percentage, smaller then the chance being hit by lightning. Sometimes certain bits in memory flip seemingly randomly. It is assumed this happens because of radiation, magnetic fields, or both. But again, it is not known whether that is deterministic or just stupidly complex and difficult to calculate.
But as I said above, determinism and non-determinism has not much to do with todays AI's because they all use very simple logic. All of our AI's use statistical analysis and heuristics, as I have already said above, and none of them benefit much from true randomness. Deterministic randomness is more than enough for these algorithms.
The article you had linked a few pages ago is a good basis for this discussion. Just read it, it explains fairly well how their AI works and it should become obvious how an AI like that does not "learn" anything by itself.
But I agree. We should probably call it quit at this point.
|
On August 16 2016 06:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:22 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do. There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win. Could someone who was going to vote for Trump but considered the Khan comments to be unfit of a president be convinced to switch back to Trump? I would find it hard to believe anything Trump says could appease those sort of people. And they are the people he needs to win back. Yes, time heals all wounds. The issue is we know the media isn't going to change in 3 months, so it falls to him to avoid these traps that then get printed in every newspaper and run and commented on every cable news station for days. Once the debates get going, the race takes a different tone. So your answer to the question "what can Trump do to win back voters" is 'wait until they forget all the terrible things he said'? Hardly a convincing strategy. You posed the specific hypothetical of what he could do to win someone who was turned off by the Khan comments. There isn't a time machine to undo it. Think about the same question but for Hillary. How does Hillary win someone who wanted to vote for her except for that whole email thing? There's nothing but wait until it stops being an issue because built into the question is that that specific thing is the foil for the person's vote. Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:
As for your believe that the debates will change the game. You might want to tell Trump that since he hardly seems confident in them himself.
You misunderstand, I'm not predicting debate winners, but that was a nice edgy jab. That leg of the presidential race, that close to he election, takes a different tone as people are forced to at least pretend to cover substance as they always have in the past. With time for people to move on from the latest headline "comments," Trump can win support as people are exposed to his strong message, exactly like the times he's made gains previously. The goal is not get everyone to love you. The goal is to get a group of people who think you're the best choice on the ballot, and make sure that the fraction of those people that are enthusiastic enough to actually vote are distributed in a way that wins you 270 electoral votes, i.e., more than the fraction of your opponent's supporters that are enthusiastic enough to vote.
Firstly, The main difference is that Hillary does not need to convince the people who left her over the email problems because she is winning without them. Unlike Trump. who does need to regain support. And just hoping people forget and that the Democrats won't refresh peoples memories every once in a while is not going to work.
Secondly, your saying the debates have a different tone but we have seen no indication at all of Trump being able to change tone.
And Trumps strong message is certainly not substance since sofar his campaign has been remarkably devoid of any substance at all.
|
Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim American war hero who gave Donald Trump a lesson on citizenship at the Democratic convention last month, wants the GOP nominee to take the U.S. naturalization test.
Khan, who became a United States citizen after emigrating from Pakistan in 1980, issued the challenge on Monday in reaction to a Trump foreign policy address in Youngstown, Ohio, in which the businessman proposed instituting an ideological test to visa applicants before allowing them to enter the country. Under the test, Trump said, applicants would be subjected to “extreme, extreme vetting” in order to “screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles.”
But Khan, who lives in Virginia with his wife Ghazala, rejected such rhetoric.
“This is my country too,” Khan told The Huffington Post in an email. “We must make it safe ― as Muslim Americans it is our obligation to keep our country safe. We reject all violence. We support better immigration policies. We stand as a testament to assimilation and being part of patriotic America as anyone else.”
He then challenged Trump to take the U.S. naturalization test along with him.
Source
|
On August 16 2016 07:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim American war hero who gave Donald Trump a lesson on citizenship at the Democratic convention last month, wants the GOP nominee to take the U.S. naturalization test.
Khan, who became a United States citizen after emigrating from Pakistan in 1980, issued the challenge on Monday in reaction to a Trump foreign policy address in Youngstown, Ohio, in which the businessman proposed instituting an ideological test to visa applicants before allowing them to enter the country. Under the test, Trump said, applicants would be subjected to “extreme, extreme vetting” in order to “screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles.”
But Khan, who lives in Virginia with his wife Ghazala, rejected such rhetoric.
“This is my country too,” Khan told The Huffington Post in an email. “We must make it safe ― as Muslim Americans it is our obligation to keep our country safe. We reject all violence. We support better immigration policies. We stand as a testament to assimilation and being part of patriotic America as anyone else.”
He then challenged Trump to take the U.S. naturalization test along with him. Source
I fully support the idea of Khan being the official speaker for all things Muslim from democrats. Keeping his name in headlines should be a top priority for democrats right now. He is purely damaging and appears to be a gift that keeps giving.
|
On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:22 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do. There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win. Could someone who was going to vote for Trump but considered the Khan comments to be unfit of a president be convinced to switch back to Trump? I would find it hard to believe anything Trump says could appease those sort of people. And they are the people he needs to win back. Yes, time heals all wounds. The issue is we know the media isn't going to change in 3 months, so it falls to him to avoid these traps that then get printed in every newspaper and run and commented on every cable news station for days. Once the debates get going, the race takes a different tone. So your answer to the question "what can Trump do to win back voters" is 'wait until they forget all the terrible things he said'? Hardly a convincing strategy. You posed the specific hypothetical of what he could do to win someone who was turned off by the Khan comments. There isn't a time machine to undo it. Think about the same question but for Hillary. How does Hillary win someone who wanted to vote for her except for that whole email thing? There's nothing but wait until it stops being an issue because built into the question is that that specific thing is the foil for the person's vote. On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:
As for your believe that the debates will change the game. You might want to tell Trump that since he hardly seems confident in them himself.
You misunderstand, I'm not predicting debate winners, but that was a nice edgy jab. That leg of the presidential race, that close to he election, takes a different tone as people are forced to at least pretend to cover substance as they always have in the past. With time for people to move on from the latest headline "comments," Trump can win support as people are exposed to his strong message, exactly like the times he's made gains previously. The goal is not get everyone to love you. The goal is to get a group of people who think you're the best choice on the ballot, and make sure that the fraction of those people that are enthusiastic enough to actually vote are distributed in a way that wins you 270 electoral votes, i.e., more than the fraction of your opponent's supporters that are enthusiastic enough to vote. Firstly, The main difference is that Hillary does not need to convince the people who left her over the email problems because she is winning without them. Unlike Trump. who does need to regain support. And just hoping people forget and that the Democrats won't refresh peoples memories every once in a while is not going to work.
So what's Hillary going to do about the email people when she's losing?
On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:
Secondly, your saying the debates have a different tone but we have seen no indication at all of Trump being able to change tone.
And Trumps strong message is certainly not substance since sofar his campaign has been remarkably devoid of any substance at all.
You need to have your eyes checked.
|
On August 16 2016 07:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:22 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do. There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win. Could someone who was going to vote for Trump but considered the Khan comments to be unfit of a president be convinced to switch back to Trump? I would find it hard to believe anything Trump says could appease those sort of people. And they are the people he needs to win back. Yes, time heals all wounds. The issue is we know the media isn't going to change in 3 months, so it falls to him to avoid these traps that then get printed in every newspaper and run and commented on every cable news station for days. Once the debates get going, the race takes a different tone. So your answer to the question "what can Trump do to win back voters" is 'wait until they forget all the terrible things he said'? Hardly a convincing strategy. You posed the specific hypothetical of what he could do to win someone who was turned off by the Khan comments. There isn't a time machine to undo it. Think about the same question but for Hillary. How does Hillary win someone who wanted to vote for her except for that whole email thing? There's nothing but wait until it stops being an issue because built into the question is that that specific thing is the foil for the person's vote. On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:
As for your believe that the debates will change the game. You might want to tell Trump that since he hardly seems confident in them himself.
You misunderstand, I'm not predicting debate winners, but that was a nice edgy jab. That leg of the presidential race, that close to he election, takes a different tone as people are forced to at least pretend to cover substance as they always have in the past. With time for people to move on from the latest headline "comments," Trump can win support as people are exposed to his strong message, exactly like the times he's made gains previously. The goal is not get everyone to love you. The goal is to get a group of people who think you're the best choice on the ballot, and make sure that the fraction of those people that are enthusiastic enough to actually vote are distributed in a way that wins you 270 electoral votes, i.e., more than the fraction of your opponent's supporters that are enthusiastic enough to vote. Firstly, The main difference is that Hillary does not need to convince the people who left her over the email problems because she is winning without them. Unlike Trump. who does need to regain support. And just hoping people forget and that the Democrats won't refresh peoples memories every once in a while is not going to work. So what's Hillary going to do about the email people when she's losing? Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:
Secondly, your saying the debates have a different tone but we have seen no indication at all of Trump being able to change tone.
And Trumps strong message is certainly not substance since sofar his campaign has been remarkably devoid of any substance at all. You need to have your eyes checked.
We can discuss what Clinton needs to do about email people when we're transported into the alternate reality where she isn't beating Trump by anywhere from 6-8 percentage points and a big electoral college wall of blue. It's a pointless question she doesn't care about right now.
Luckily I haven't fallen into that reality yet. I hope.
|
Reince Priebus may not have had enough.
The longest-serving chairman of the Republican National Committee in history is weighing a return engagement as head of the GOP, POLITICO has learned.
It’s a move that would come as a surprise to many. The 44-year-old Priebus, who was first elected in 2011, had led many to believe he would be finished with the high-profile job following a rambunctious campaign season — one that at times has resulted in fierce criticism of Priebus and the committee he leads. Already, several would-be successors, including former Silicon Valley executive Carly Fiorina, have begun de facto campaigns for the chairmanship.
But in recent weeks, Priebus has begun telling friends and allies that he’s seriously considering running for reelection. During last month’s Republican National Convention, he approached Henry Barbour, a loyal ally who is the nephew of former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour, and told him he was thinking about a return.
“He wants to keep his options open for running for reelection,” Henry Barbour said in an interview.
Other party leaders who’ve spoken with Priebus — some of whom have reached out to him to gauge his intentions — say they’ve come away with the impression that he’s increasingly likely to seek reelection.
Source
|
On August 16 2016 07:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Reince Priebus may not have had enough.
The longest-serving chairman of the Republican National Committee in history is weighing a return engagement as head of the GOP, POLITICO has learned.
It’s a move that would come as a surprise to many. The 44-year-old Priebus, who was first elected in 2011, had led many to believe he would be finished with the high-profile job following a rambunctious campaign season — one that at times has resulted in fierce criticism of Priebus and the committee he leads. Already, several would-be successors, including former Silicon Valley executive Carly Fiorina, have begun de facto campaigns for the chairmanship.
But in recent weeks, Priebus has begun telling friends and allies that he’s seriously considering running for reelection. During last month’s Republican National Convention, he approached Henry Barbour, a loyal ally who is the nephew of former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour, and told him he was thinking about a return.
“He wants to keep his options open for running for reelection,” Henry Barbour said in an interview.
Other party leaders who’ve spoken with Priebus — some of whom have reached out to him to gauge his intentions — say they’ve come away with the impression that he’s increasingly likely to seek reelection. Source
He must really hate his liver
|
On August 16 2016 07:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Reince Priebus may not have had enough.
The longest-serving chairman of the Republican National Committee in history is weighing a return engagement as head of the GOP, POLITICO has learned.
It’s a move that would come as a surprise to many. The 44-year-old Priebus, who was first elected in 2011, had led many to believe he would be finished with the high-profile job following a rambunctious campaign season — one that at times has resulted in fierce criticism of Priebus and the committee he leads. Already, several would-be successors, including former Silicon Valley executive Carly Fiorina, have begun de facto campaigns for the chairmanship.
But in recent weeks, Priebus has begun telling friends and allies that he’s seriously considering running for reelection. During last month’s Republican National Convention, he approached Henry Barbour, a loyal ally who is the nephew of former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour, and told him he was thinking about a return.
“He wants to keep his options open for running for reelection,” Henry Barbour said in an interview.
Other party leaders who’ve spoken with Priebus — some of whom have reached out to him to gauge his intentions — say they’ve come away with the impression that he’s increasingly likely to seek reelection. Source
"Well it can't possibly be worse."
|
On August 16 2016 07:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 07:29 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:22 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do. There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win. Could someone who was going to vote for Trump but considered the Khan comments to be unfit of a president be convinced to switch back to Trump? I would find it hard to believe anything Trump says could appease those sort of people. And they are the people he needs to win back. Yes, time heals all wounds. The issue is we know the media isn't going to change in 3 months, so it falls to him to avoid these traps that then get printed in every newspaper and run and commented on every cable news station for days. Once the debates get going, the race takes a different tone. So your answer to the question "what can Trump do to win back voters" is 'wait until they forget all the terrible things he said'? Hardly a convincing strategy. You posed the specific hypothetical of what he could do to win someone who was turned off by the Khan comments. There isn't a time machine to undo it. Think about the same question but for Hillary. How does Hillary win someone who wanted to vote for her except for that whole email thing? There's nothing but wait until it stops being an issue because built into the question is that that specific thing is the foil for the person's vote. On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:
As for your believe that the debates will change the game. You might want to tell Trump that since he hardly seems confident in them himself.
You misunderstand, I'm not predicting debate winners, but that was a nice edgy jab. That leg of the presidential race, that close to he election, takes a different tone as people are forced to at least pretend to cover substance as they always have in the past. With time for people to move on from the latest headline "comments," Trump can win support as people are exposed to his strong message, exactly like the times he's made gains previously. The goal is not get everyone to love you. The goal is to get a group of people who think you're the best choice on the ballot, and make sure that the fraction of those people that are enthusiastic enough to actually vote are distributed in a way that wins you 270 electoral votes, i.e., more than the fraction of your opponent's supporters that are enthusiastic enough to vote. Firstly, The main difference is that Hillary does not need to convince the people who left her over the email problems because she is winning without them. Unlike Trump. who does need to regain support. And just hoping people forget and that the Democrats won't refresh peoples memories every once in a while is not going to work. So what's Hillary going to do about the email people when she's losing? On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:
Secondly, your saying the debates have a different tone but we have seen no indication at all of Trump being able to change tone.
And Trumps strong message is certainly not substance since sofar his campaign has been remarkably devoid of any substance at all. You need to have your eyes checked. We can discuss what Clinton needs to do about email people when we're transported into the alternate reality where she isn't beating Trump by anywhere from 6-8 percentage points and a big electoral college wall of blue. It's a pointless question she doesn't care about right now. Luckily I haven't fallen into that reality yet. I hope.
If you or Gorsameth can't come up with an answer to the question, then the original one was meaningless. It's got all the force of this:
-<Candidate> is losing.
-Robert Deniro won't vote for <candidate>.
-How can <candidate> ever win?
There are many reasons people want to and don't want to vote for both candidates. The point of a campaign is to turn those reasons to your advantage. This is achieved by spreading your message and calling your opponent shit, and having your surrogates do the same. The total failure of someone's imagination when they get to the level of suggesting the only way to win a US presidential election is to don a Hillary Clinton costume is of no value either to pundits or to strategists.
|
On August 16 2016 07:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 07:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 16 2016 07:29 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:22 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On August 16 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do. There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win. Could someone who was going to vote for Trump but considered the Khan comments to be unfit of a president be convinced to switch back to Trump? I would find it hard to believe anything Trump says could appease those sort of people. And they are the people he needs to win back. Yes, time heals all wounds. The issue is we know the media isn't going to change in 3 months, so it falls to him to avoid these traps that then get printed in every newspaper and run and commented on every cable news station for days. Once the debates get going, the race takes a different tone. So your answer to the question "what can Trump do to win back voters" is 'wait until they forget all the terrible things he said'? Hardly a convincing strategy. You posed the specific hypothetical of what he could do to win someone who was turned off by the Khan comments. There isn't a time machine to undo it. Think about the same question but for Hillary. How does Hillary win someone who wanted to vote for her except for that whole email thing? There's nothing but wait until it stops being an issue because built into the question is that that specific thing is the foil for the person's vote. On August 16 2016 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:
As for your believe that the debates will change the game. You might want to tell Trump that since he hardly seems confident in them himself.
You misunderstand, I'm not predicting debate winners, but that was a nice edgy jab. That leg of the presidential race, that close to he election, takes a different tone as people are forced to at least pretend to cover substance as they always have in the past. With time for people to move on from the latest headline "comments," Trump can win support as people are exposed to his strong message, exactly like the times he's made gains previously. The goal is not get everyone to love you. The goal is to get a group of people who think you're the best choice on the ballot, and make sure that the fraction of those people that are enthusiastic enough to actually vote are distributed in a way that wins you 270 electoral votes, i.e., more than the fraction of your opponent's supporters that are enthusiastic enough to vote. Firstly, The main difference is that Hillary does not need to convince the people who left her over the email problems because she is winning without them. Unlike Trump. who does need to regain support. And just hoping people forget and that the Democrats won't refresh peoples memories every once in a while is not going to work. So what's Hillary going to do about the email people when she's losing? On August 16 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:
Secondly, your saying the debates have a different tone but we have seen no indication at all of Trump being able to change tone.
And Trumps strong message is certainly not substance since sofar his campaign has been remarkably devoid of any substance at all. You need to have your eyes checked. We can discuss what Clinton needs to do about email people when we're transported into the alternate reality where she isn't beating Trump by anywhere from 6-8 percentage points and a big electoral college wall of blue. It's a pointless question she doesn't care about right now. Luckily I haven't fallen into that reality yet. I hope. If you or Gorsameth can't come up with an answer to the question, then the original one was meaningless. It's got all the force of this: -<Candidate> is losing. -Robert Deniro won't vote for <candidate>. -How can <candidate> ever win? There are many reasons people want to and don't want to vote for both candidates. The point of a campaign is to turn those reasons to your advantage. This is achieved by spreading your message and calling your opponent shit, and having your surrogates do the same. The total failure of someone's imagination when they get to the level of suggesting the only way to win a US presidential election is to don a Hillary Clinton costume is of no value either to pundits or to strategists.
The original question was, "what can Trump say or do to help him win the election at this point in time?" Expanded to a hypothetical of "what can he do to win back people that were turned off him by the Khan issue" given that that was linked to a pretty incredible decline in his fortunes.
I think people want more detailed and reasoned answers than "spreading his message and calling his opponent shit." Or saying he needs to go after people who might vote for him (oh, really, shocking). Those are non-answers and pretty useless for all concerned.
I don't see how what Clinton has to say about her emails is relevant to that at all. Or perhaps "donning a Hillary Clinton costume" means "not act like an impulsive dolt" in which case I think he probably does have to do that.
|
Ukrainian anti-corruption officials have confirmed that Donald Trump's campaign chairman's name appears in a list of so-called black accounts made by the country's toppled president.
Paul Manafort, who is playing an important role in this year's U.S. presidential election, has denied that he received any off-the-books payments from the Ukrainian government.
Accounts of the controversial payments surfaced this weekend when The New York Times reported that Manafort's name appears on a list of payments amounting to $12.7 million from 2007 to 2012.
A spokesman for the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau confirmed the details in the Times story.
In the period covered by the payment list, Manafort worked for former Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych, who was supportive of Russia's President Vladimir Putin and was ousted in 2014.
The bureau spokesman emphasized that so far it has not been confirmed whether Manafort received the cash, since the bureau has not yet been able to confirm if signatures in the recipient column are Manafort's or not. The spokesman said the Anti-Corruption Bureau is conducting an analysis of the signatures.
“We can’t say 100 percent that this is his signature. We have an analysis going on to confirm whether this is his signature or not and, if not, who this signature belongs to," the spokesman said.
He confirmed that while the preliminary investigation is underway, the bureau is conducting "a criminal investigation on whole black accounts but not against individuals yet."
Manafort has denied receiving payments under the table from pro-Russian Ukrainian groups before becoming involved with the Trump campaign.
Source
|
Wow, I would think that having taken money from Yanukovych (if it's shown to be true) would be really, really, damning for Manafort and perhaps also for Trump. But, who knows this year.
|
Does Manafort advising Yanukovych really matter today? Trump voters excuse the Twitter and lashing out at Kahn, the media, X ... and his campaign managers employment history is the last straw??? I'd more fault him for the handling of Dole's campaign than the rest. I can only imagine this is a feeble attempt to link the email leak's sinister origins to some conspiracy involving Manafort and Russia. A fucking hilarious distraction from the very truthful criticism that can be leveled at Trump.
He can make it in debates. Hillary is prodigiously awful at connecting with ordinary Americans. The Trump campaign has not shown promise for staying on message and defining their own position to attack hers. I agree with the natesilver crowd that Hillary enjoys a solid lead here in August. She's still a weak candidate and the Trump camp can turn this around.
|
Advising should the problem seeing his past clients. But the big problem is the cash payments are the problem, governments only pay in cash for limited reasons to persons through corrupt practices, or the other thing. And Paul Manafort doesn't fit the profile of a Jason Bourne type figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
