US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5529

On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry?

When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2?

Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler.

On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:


My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight.

However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment.

Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. A cookie cutter establishment candidate is more likely to keep things in the same spot as it was, while an actual anti-establishment candidate is as likely to go one way or the other when it comes to their results. Its like inertia. Things will stay in motion until something stops it. Establishment candidates primarily serve that role. Its not until you have a candidate who starts stripping away all the "useless/bad established norms" that you accidentally realize that there was a reason for those in the first place.

The primaries was a perfect example of this. Both the Dems and the Reps had a stubborn ideologue who did well with crowds. They were both shit in debates when policies were discussed, and had a tendency to either not really know what to say or complete fuck up any direct policy questions when they were not allowed to just repeat their sound bites.

However, Dems had more ways to support the safe candidate than Republicans. So Republicans got stuck with their ideologue while Dems got an actual good candidate on the ticket.

Wanting change at all costs, conservative voters were willing to jump to anyone whose promise was to change the way things were--so they voted for the anti-wallstreet, isolationist, who does not want to help Syrians. Without a way to maintain established order, the GOP got stuck with their people's anti-establishment choice.

The Dems were more aware of the importance of maintaining status quo and were able to beat their own anti-wallstreet, isolanist candidate who did not want to help Syrians. They did this by pushing the importance of maintaining the status quo.

On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:


My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight.

However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment.

Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same.

On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:


Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion.

The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed.

On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:


My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight.

However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment.

Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same.

On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:


Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion.

The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed.

On October 13 2016 04:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Let me simplify.

If goal is A=>A then A
If goal is A=>B then B > A OR B < A OR B=A

A is establishment
B is anti-establishment

On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:

Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues.

On October 13 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the terms anti-establishment is being too broadly used. If I follow the discussion, Hitler and Bernie Sanders can both be considered some level of “anti establishment” the way the term is uses. I think that might be a bit broad.

On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:


The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are:

- Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control)
- An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it.

On October 13 2016 04:14 Nebuchad wrote:


I'm not sure what line of response I should use here, I could either comment on the irrelevance of your demonstration to the point I made in the post you responded to, or I could comment that if goal is A=>B, then I'm pretty sure B > A, since B = B.

On October 13 2016 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:


That's mainly because the term establishment doesn't refer to a specific stance. The views of Sanders are mostly part of establishment politics in most of Europe, while the views of a Ted Cruz would mostly not be.

On October 13 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:

Then I think the discussion might fall apart without some sort of consensus on what political system you are all discussing. Without first deciding what represents the establishment, it is almost impossible to discuss the consequences of siding with an anti establishment movement.

On October 13 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote:
If Hillary wins this election shes almost for sure win the next one. it'll be the 100th anniversary of the women's right to vote in america. not to mention her leviathan-like political network will swell and grow in size in the years against a fractured and infighting GOP?

There is a 19-year-old black man in Illinois who has no idea of the role he is playing in this election.

He is sure he is going to vote for Donald J. Trump.

And he has been held up as proof by conservatives — including outlets like Breitbart News and The New York Post — that Mr. Trump is excelling among black voters. He has even played a modest role in shifting entire polling aggregates, like the Real Clear Politics average, toward Mr. Trump.

How? He’s a panelist on the U.S.C. Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak poll, which has emerged as the biggest polling outlier of the presidential campaign. Despite falling behind by double digits in some national surveys, Mr. Trump has generally led in the U.S.C./LAT poll. He held the lead for a full month until Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton took a nominal lead.

Our Trump-supporting friend in Illinois is a surprisingly big part of the reason. In some polls, he’s weighted as much as 30 times more than the average respondent, and as much as 300 times more than the least-weighted respondent.

Alone, he has been enough to put Mr. Trump in double digits of support among black voters. He can improve Mr. Trump’s margin by 1 point in the survey, even though he is one of around 3,000 panelists.

He is also the reason Mrs. Clinton took the lead in the U.S.C./LAT poll for the first time in a month on Wednesday. The poll includes only the last seven days of respondents, and he hasn’t taken the poll since Oct. 4. Mrs. Clinton surged once he was out of the sample for the first time in several weeks.

[...]

Jill Darling, the survey director at the U.S.C. Center for Economic and Social Research, noted that they had decided not to “trim” the weights (that’s when a poll prevents one person from being weighted up by more than some amount, like five or 10) because the sample would otherwise underrepresent African-American and young voters.

This makes sense. Gallup got itself into trouble for this reason in 2012: It trimmed its weights, and nonwhite voters were underrepresented.

In general, the choice in “trimming” weights is between bias and variance in the results of the poll. If you trim the weights, your sample will be biased — it might not include enough of the voters who tend to be underrepresented. If you don’t trim the weights, a few heavily weighted respondents could have the power to sway the survey. The poll might be a little noisier, and the margin of error higher (note that the margin of error on the U.S.C./LAT poll for black voters surges every time the heavily weighted young black voter enters the survey).

But the U.S.C./LAT poll is a panel — which means it recontacts the same voters over and over — and so it wound up with the worst of both worlds.

If the U.S.C./LAT poll were a normal poll, the 19-year-old from Illinois might have been in the poll only once. Most of the time, the heavily weighted young black voters would lean toward Mrs. Clinton — ensuring that the poll both had the appropriate number of black voters, and a relatively representative result.

But the U.S.C./LAT poll had terrible luck: The single most overweighted person in the survey was unrepresentative of his demographic group. The people running the poll basically got stuck at the extreme of the added variance.