EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4956
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 12 2016 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Hillary actually next gen cyborg confirmed. Or last gen, honestly. The models this year have been a really poor showing. Romney-bot at least consistently looked human, unlike Cruz-bot, and talked incrementally more like a person than Clinton-bot. And he/it never had a coolant issue. On September 12 2016 03:40 GoTuNk! wrote: I remember several liberal posters on this forum comparing me and xDaunt to 9/11 truthers for saying Hillary's health was not perfect and that it was reasonable to doubt her physicians claims that she had "perfect health". I love how the partisan hacks in the thread get to do this to each other regularly, while the rest of us shrug our shoulders. Independent thought... it's fun! Clinton would be on better ground if she released her medical records, if they were indeed spottless. They obviously aren't. She deleted her emails because she judged the fallout from doing so not as bad as whatever would have been uncovered. And Trump, for his part, is concealing his medical and tax information. There's a reason for that. This is a year of shitty candidates. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 12 2016 04:50 Plansix wrote: The polls were always going to tighten. Nate Silver and NPR were talking about how voters make decisions in waves based on huge public events like the debates and the conventions. In many places, Trumps numbers had no place to go but up, which shows that Clinton needs to do more work. Also, some networks switched to polls using registered voters as opposed to likely voters. That's not the impression I was getting from this thread where people were expecting a massive sweep for Hillary. Saying they're going to tighten is one thing, but if you look at the last 4 out of 5 national polls (starting in September 1st or later), and take the one outlier away, Hillary is up by +1... And then you have this stuff to happen to her. Anyway, I expected a tight race, but saying Trump had nowhere to go but up when at 40% isn't true imo. Not long ago were we at a time when only 60-65% of Republicans said were going to still vote for him. Against a right leaning Democrat like Kaine without much personal stuff, I could have easily seen Trump lose by +15-20, much like the Reagan elections. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 12 2016 04:56 Yoav wrote: Or last gen, honestly. The models this year have been a really poor showing. Romney-bot at least consistently looked human, unlike Cruz-bot, and talked incrementally more like a person than Clinton-bot. And he/it never had a coolant issue. Well let's dispense with this fiction that Obama-bot doesn't know what he's/it's doing. He/it knows exactly what he/it is doing. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On September 12 2016 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote: @ghostcom I guess so far the object seen falling from her leg is being speculated as a Diazepam injector, any input as to whether that makes any sense? @Hillary supporters, has her camp said anything about what it was? EDIT: Also I guess she lost a shoe too. I see no real reason to suspect she would need an injector and not simply take it as a pill. I also don't think the shape matches up - the object looked fairly much like a square and not an auto-injector. Further, I think the same objection as to the phone/keys theory could be made: why would it come from within her pant leg? | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9489 Posts
On September 12 2016 04:50 Plansix wrote: The polls were always going to tighten. Nate Silver and NPR were talking about how voters make decisions in waves based on huge public events like the debates and the conventions. In many places, Trumps numbers had no place to go but up, which shows that Clinton needs to do more work. Also, some networks switched to polls using registered voters as opposed to likely voters. I didn't see anyone in here saying Trump had no where to go but up lol (unless you're referring to the black vote). Trump had 3 times as many campaign events in August and had 200K vs 10K people show up. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 12 2016 04:53 LegalLord wrote: All in all we're back to the 70-30 Clinton-Trump equilibrium that common sense would dictate is the real likelihood of victory. As you get closer, with the same percentage lead, you'd expect the gap to widen. Trump staying 70/30 means he's making up ground. 70-30 is not what common sense would dictate, it's by no means universal. After the primaries, Trump went down to 20% in the polls-plus forecast, and even then, seeing those leads, you'd almost have to be crazy to give Trump more than a 15-20% chance of winning the election. The place where he had a chance to catch his big break ended up with Hillary getting an even larger lead... Now cast had him at 3.6% chance of winning at that point. Trump's been fighting back hard. He could have easily been down to a 10% chance if not for doing well this last month. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
Source Interesting statistic S: | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:01 Ghostcom wrote: I see no real reason to suspect she would need an injector and not simply take it as a pill. I also don't think the shape matches up - the object looked fairly much like a square and not an auto-injector. Further, I think the same objection as to the phone/keys theory could be made: why would it come from within her pant leg? I would presume the injector would be more "fast acting" to prevent people from seeing her seize? I hadn't seen a good picture of the object so no idea on the shape. Maybe she's got a high tech remote delivery system and what we see is a spent cartridge. Sounds like that's not what it was (but they are made of/have metal parts?), waiting to hear still what Hillary's camp says it was, seems like they kinda have to? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 12 2016 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Maybe a grade? Because otherwise what difference would it make? What would be a disqualifying illness? the difference would just be in knowing that there was an independent checkup. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:30 zlefin wrote: the difference would just be in knowing that there was an independent checkup. Yeah but what if they found they had Alzheimers and stage 4 cancer? What difference would it make that they were independent? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote: I would presume the injector would be more "fast acting" to prevent people from seeing her seize? I hadn't seen a good picture of the object so no idea on the shape. Maybe she's got a high tech remote delivery system and what we see is a spent cartridge. Sounds like that's not what it was (but they are made of/have metal parts?), waiting to hear still what Hillary's camp says it was, seems like they kinda have to? They are indeed more fast acting and could theoretically be relevant in case of a real epileptic seizure (not the weird as balls reaction she made in that infamous clip with the reporters). However, it wouldn't exactly be standard of care (which admittedly she likely wouldn't receive anyhow), and you can't really stop a seizure before it happens and make it completely unnoticeable. The casing of the auto-injectors are often made of plastic, but can be made of whatever depending on specific manufacturer. EDIT: I don't see any reason why the Hillary camp should comment further on this. She didn't feel well -> got a heatstroke (or whatever they want to call it) -> the end. As stated earlier, HIPAA is also a thing for candidates and it's not like they'll be able to give a satisfactory answer beyond this. I.e. if she is somehow worse off then it won't help her campaign to actually disclose it (unless she wants to go hail mary: "I'm running despite my health to save America in these troubling times" | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
I don't know how serious this morning was but isn't that the problem? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah but what if they found they had Alzheimers and stage 4 cancer? What difference would it make that they were independent? I would assume that something sufficiently bad would be mandatory disclosure; if not to public than to some high gov't agents, esp the cabinet and some heads of congress. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:34 Ghostcom wrote: They are indeed more fast acting and could theoretically be relevant in case of a real epileptic seizure (not the weird as balls reaction she made in that infamous clip with the reporters). However, it wouldn't exactly be standard of care (which admittedly she likely wouldn't receive anyhow), and you can't really stop a seizure before it happens and make it completely unnoticeable. The casing of the auto-injectors are often made of plastic, but can be made of whatever depending on specific manufacturer. To be clear I don't currently buy the seizure stuff (the sunglasses for example), but I imagine the injector would be to mitigate how apparent it was rather than hide it completely. I'd prefer not to have to speculate though, seems like Hillary's camp isn't going to say anything though (which just makes it more suspicious). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:39 zlefin wrote: I would assume that something sufficiently bad would be mandatory disclosure; if not to public than to some high gov't agents. Yeah, but who would decide on the cutoff for reporting, then who would have the authority to do what, based off of such information? EDIT: oops | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, but who would decide on the cutoff for reporting, then who would have the authority to do what, based off of such information? EDIT: oops the cabinet; can remove them from the presidency. and it's not that hard to make some suitable cutoffs. for candidates; idunno, but still not that hard to figure out something reasonably decent. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:42 zlefin wrote: the cabinet; can remove them from the presidency. and it's not that hard to make some suitable cutoffs. Well the cabinet wouldn't be much help before they are elected (which I thought we were talking about), even then, they would be the least likely people in the country to do such a thing. I think it's harder than you portray to decide who makes the cutoffs let alone precisely what they are. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 12 2016 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Well the cabinet wouldn't be much help before they are elected (which I thought we were talking about), even then, they would be the least likely people in the country to do such a thing. I think it's harder than you portray to decide who makes the cutoffs let alone precisely what they are. Well, then we just disagree; as I think making reasonable cutoffs would be pretty feasible. and even pre-election it's not that hard to come up with a decent system. | ||
| ||
