|
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. |
This Onion piece gave me a laugh.
WEST PALM BEACH, FL—Responding to his flagging poll numbers and a string of newspaper editorials and cable news pundits questioning his fitness to lead, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly complained to a rally crowd Thursday that for the entirety of this race, his personality has been rigged against him. “From day one, my internal thought processes and overall temperament have completely stacked the deck against my candidacy—it’s so obvious, folks, you can’t deny it,” said Trump, claiming that all facets of his character, from his egocentric worldview to his brash, vitriolic responses to even the smallest and most inconsequential provocations, have been colluding to ruin his chances of ever reaching the Oval Office. “Open your eyes, people! Just look at how I routinely project the fear and hatred inside of me onto others, or my total lack of impulse control, conscientiousness, and tact. My personality is doing everything—and I mean everything—to make sure I never have a chance.” Trump then reportedly vowed that no matter how many of his own character traits aligned against him, he would never let his personality stop him from becoming president, drawing raucous cheers from the crowd.
Source
|
On October 17 2016 10:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 oBlade wrote:On October 17 2016 09:18 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:15 oBlade wrote:On October 17 2016 09:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 17 2016 08:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 17 2016 08:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 17 2016 08:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote The most conservative statistical model out there that I'm aware of (538 polls-plus) gives Trump worse odds than 5-1. It's pretty unlikely the interest groups are rigging the odds through capital. And the final poll before the brexit vote had remain up by 10 points.It was also the largest sample size of all polls.Explain that? Keep trusting those phony polls, plenty here going to get a huge shock come election day. I've already explained it to you the last time you brought this shit up, Brexit doesn't void polling. It was a one off vote with no precedent and no proper baseline, an issue that is not present in cyclical elections. You can't explain away a 12 point discrepancy between polling and the final result.Nice sidestep there.Drudge through the UK politics thread i'm sure youll find dozens of claims that brexit will never win.Maybe some of those predictions were even made by you. Yes, polls are interesting, but people who can only think through polls are tiring. Do you have a better method for figuring out what the population thinks and predicting who will win? You don't need to predict the winner, it's not a big priority. People have explained this before in the thread, in an election you don't get extra points for choosing the right answer. So you're not doubting the efficacy of polling, just complaining about horse race reporting? Surely the discussions of a) who should win, and b) who is going to win are both legitimate ones to have. Right now, for instance, it seems pretty meaningless to discuss policy implications of Trump's various plans when by all indications he won't have any chance to implement them. It takes less than a second to read a poll margin, there's nothing to talk about. The growing pollster obsession has been cancer for politics. When people talk about polls, it would be better to talk about them as such. Like PPP polls. Some polls are real surveys. It creates this cooperative game atmosphere and turns people into a mob. It didn't used to be like this in the 20th century, and it's not helping our system. Instead, people report the election like it's a horse race, as you said. The truth is polls change, polls fail, and unlikely things happen.
I would argue that the polls take a special relevance in this election because "winning" is such a big part of Trump's brand. One of the tests for whether a news story will hurt one candidate or the other is asking whether it cuts against a central part of the candidate's message. In this sense losing in polls directly contradicts one of Trump's biggest advertised assets: he's the guy who wins.
|
If crowds would matter Bernie would have beaten Hillary and all of Europe would be governed by the Front National and the AfD. Measuring support in street protest is pretty useless, most voters don't participate that publicly and still vote.
|
On October 17 2016 10:47 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:45 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out. You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win? That depends really. Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event. But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign. And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president. Ah, so we're digging into the methodology more. Okay, so I agree that pulling crowds for a music event is very different than pulling crowds for a political event. Can we also agree that pulling crowds for a political event is also very different than pulling crowds to a voting booth? I, for instance, have little interest in seeing either Trump or Hillary speak, but I fully intend to vote. So your proposed methodology would overlook people like me, no? Yes but attendee number is still a more accurate comparison than polls.
"Accurate" of what? If you want we can go back through previous elections and see if attendance numbers at rallies were collected, and if so whether it correlated strongly with winning. One I know off-hand: Goldwater pulled huge crowds, way bigger than Johnson, and yet still lost. So is there any evidence that attendance numbers are predictive of election results? Because there's plenty of evidence that polls are.
|
On October 17 2016 10:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:45 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out. You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win? That depends really. Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event. But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign. And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president. Ah, so we're digging into the methodology more. Okay, so I agree that pulling crowds for a music event is very different than pulling crowds for a political event. Can we also agree that pulling crowds for a political event is also very different than pulling crowds to a voting booth? I, for instance, have little interest in seeing either Trump or Hillary speak, but I fully intend to vote. So your proposed methodology would overlook people like me, no? Yes but attendee number is still a more accurate comparison than polls. "Accurate" of what? If you want we can go back through previous elections and see if attendance numbers at rallies were collected, and if so whether it correlated strongly with winning. One I know off-hand: Goldwater pulled huge crowds, way bigger than Johnson, and yet still lost. So is there any evidence that attendance numbers are predictive of election results? Because there's plenty of evidence that polls are.
I know for a fact that Obama had more than Mitt/McCain.
|
On October 17 2016 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:
If crowds would matter Bernie would have beaten Hillary and all of Europe would be governed by the Front National and the AfD. Measuring support in street protest is pretty useless, most voters don't participate that publicly and still vote.
It doesn't help that the best way to get big rallies is to go to places that are going to vote for you anyway, which is a great strategy for your ego but a poor strategy for winning election. They're generally a waste of time and money on the campaign trail, especially if you're doing them rather than prepping for debates or organizing your campaign.
Sanders was a fair bit better than Trump about at least doing the rallies in relevant places though.
|
On October 17 2016 10:52 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:51 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:47 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:45 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out. You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win? That depends really. Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event. But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign. And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president. Ah, so we're digging into the methodology more. Okay, so I agree that pulling crowds for a music event is very different than pulling crowds for a political event. Can we also agree that pulling crowds for a political event is also very different than pulling crowds to a voting booth? I, for instance, have little interest in seeing either Trump or Hillary speak, but I fully intend to vote. So your proposed methodology would overlook people like me, no? Yes but attendee number is still a more accurate comparison than polls. "Accurate" of what? If you want we can go back through previous elections and see if attendance numbers at rallies were collected, and if so whether it correlated strongly with winning. One I know off-hand: Goldwater pulled huge crowds, way bigger than Johnson, and yet still lost. So is there any evidence that attendance numbers are predictive of election results? Because there's plenty of evidence that polls are. I know for a fact that Obama had more than Mitt/McCain.
Okay, that's 2/3, not too bad. Although for a good predictor metric, you would want to not just be able to pick winners, but also estimate confidence in your predictions. With polls, if the advantage to one candidate or the other is small, the election could go either way, but if the difference is large, the polls are rarely very wrong. Cases like Brexit or Harry Reid's reelection are fairly rare.
Whereas in Goldwater's case, the difference was massive. So isn't it fairly crushing to your methodology that it got it so wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said.
Paraphrasing post #1:
"I dont see how anyone can bet on an election and still have respect for democracy"
You then respond with a list of reasons that all pre-suppose gambling on an election is immoral. Yes, I'm perfectly aware that your list of reasons is valid if we had in fact established that there's a moral issue with betting on an election, but the original post did no such thing.
Given that every single reason you listed was given as if this was an established fact, I see no reason why I should automatically assume that you were playing devils advocate for his position and did not actually agree with it.
And under absolutely no circumstance did what I said warrant your reply.
|
On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it.
I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone.
|
On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect reasonable civility, especially when you think someone has just misunderstood you (and based on Jinro's most recent post, it doesn't even seem like he did). If someone was repeatedly misunderstanding you, possibly even arguing disingenuously, I could understand getting frustrated and calling them an idiot. None of that applies here, so you're just calling names, which is a shitty way to post.
Just so you don't misunderstand me, I actually generally like your posting quite a bit, which is why I was surprised you jumped to name-calling so quickly.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone.
Actually, I read the post you were replying to, I wanted to initially respond to that but you seemed to be in agreement with him on the part I disagreed with (that betting on an election is morally wrong) so I replied to you instead.
I don't post in this thread much because I don't know enough about politics to contribute, but I've read this thread continuously for the past month or so, it moves incredibly fast, to the point that I often end up wanting to write something only to find that there's 3 new pages by the time I've finished reading/digesting what I wanted to reply to.
I say this to point out that I try not to frivolously interject into ongoing discussions.
One thing I will say is that opening my post the way I did was a bad choice, because it reads a lot more antagonistic than it should (probably a case of me letting my bias show through in terms of how I view the topic of gambling compared to the original post). The original version of that post actually opened with "I love" so you got the less passive aggressive version!! 
|
On October 17 2016 10:47 LegalLord wrote:This Onion piece gave me a laugh. Show nested quote +WEST PALM BEACH, FL—Responding to his flagging poll numbers and a string of newspaper editorials and cable news pundits questioning his fitness to lead, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly complained to a rally crowd Thursday that for the entirety of this race, his personality has been rigged against him. “From day one, my internal thought processes and overall temperament have completely stacked the deck against my candidacy—it’s so obvious, folks, you can’t deny it,” said Trump, claiming that all facets of his character, from his egocentric worldview to his brash, vitriolic responses to even the smallest and most inconsequential provocations, have been colluding to ruin his chances of ever reaching the Oval Office. “Open your eyes, people! Just look at how I routinely project the fear and hatred inside of me onto others, or my total lack of impulse control, conscientiousness, and tact. My personality is doing everything—and I mean everything—to make sure I never have a chance.” Trump then reportedly vowed that no matter how many of his own character traits aligned against him, he would never let his personality stop him from becoming president, drawing raucous cheers from the crowd. Source
Speaking of satirical news, I think you'll like this one
IN a bid to clear up the factual quagmire that is the Middle East, WWN has sought the expert opinion of those on the frontline of sensationalist headlines in newspapers to bring the simple black and white truth to you, our dear readers.
“America good, Russia bad,” explained features editor of the Daily Mail Malcolm Bechmann.
“America sometimes maybe bad, but Russia badder,” Bechmann said, elaborating further.
The need for a real understanding of what is going on in the increasingly complex conflict in Syria has never been more important now that America’s foreign policy is tying itself in morally questionable knots as it continues to support Saudi Arabia’s missile strikes on innocent civilians in Yemen while condemning Russian strikes on civilians in Syria.
“No, no, Russia very, very bad. America, land of New York, Disneyland, Coca Cola. America good,” head of Daily Telegraph’s oversimplification department Henry Witton shared with WWN.
While criticism of Russian involvement in Syria has amounted to accusations of war crimes, the questionable actions of American forces abroad has been cleared up by expert media testimony.
“America,” explained Witton while pointing to America on a map of the world, “gooder. Okay? But Russia, okay? Bad,” Witton concluded.
It is believed no thought has been given to civilians affected by America and Russia’s penis measuring contest, which seems to have no end in sight.
waterfordwhispersnews.com
|
On October 17 2016 11:06 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone. Actually, I read the post you were replying to, I wanted to initially respond to that but you seemed to be in agreement with him on the part I disagreed with (that betting on an election is morally wrong) so I replied to you instead. I don't post in this thread much because I don't know enough about politics to contribute, but I've read this thread continuously for the past month or so, it moves incredibly fast, to the point that I often end up wanting to write something only to find that there's 3 new pages by the time I've finished reading/digesting what I wanted to reply to. I say this to point out that I try not to frivolously interject into ongoing discussions.
when discussing with someone, it's helpful to use parts of their point of view; and since he had that supposition, I provided reasons which worked with that supposition, and talked from within the framework he had started with.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 17 2016 11:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:06 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:
[quote]
Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy.
(Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone. Actually, I read the post you were replying to, I wanted to initially respond to that but you seemed to be in agreement with him on the part I disagreed with (that betting on an election is morally wrong) so I replied to you instead. I don't post in this thread much because I don't know enough about politics to contribute, but I've read this thread continuously for the past month or so, it moves incredibly fast, to the point that I often end up wanting to write something only to find that there's 3 new pages by the time I've finished reading/digesting what I wanted to reply to. I say this to point out that I try not to frivolously interject into ongoing discussions. when discussing with someone, it's helpful to use parts of their point of view; and since he had that supposition, I provided reasons which worked with that supposition, and talked from within the framework he had started with.
Sure, but I am not a mind-reader, you can't get upset with me for assuming you were in agreement with his position when all signs pointed to that being the case.
The first line of my post was needlessly antagonistic, but I did read both your post and what you were responding to.
|
On October 17 2016 11:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:06 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:
[quote]
Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy.
(Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone. Actually, I read the post you were replying to, I wanted to initially respond to that but you seemed to be in agreement with him on the part I disagreed with (that betting on an election is morally wrong) so I replied to you instead. I don't post in this thread much because I don't know enough about politics to contribute, but I've read this thread continuously for the past month or so, it moves incredibly fast, to the point that I often end up wanting to write something only to find that there's 3 new pages by the time I've finished reading/digesting what I wanted to reply to. I say this to point out that I try not to frivolously interject into ongoing discussions. when discussing with someone, it's helpful to use parts of their point of view; and since he had that supposition, I provided reasons which worked with that supposition, and talked from within the framework he had started with.
If I'm understanding you correctly that you were meeting him on his presupposition that betting elections on his immoral, this seems to be more or less what happened:
Person 1: I believe A, and I believe A->B, so therefore B!
Person 2: Granting that A is true, I don't think it's true that A -> B.
Person 3 (to Person 2): I don't even believe A.
Person 2 (to Person 3): You're an idiot.
A = betting on elections is immoral
B = people who bet on elections don't respect democracy.
You get how that seemed kinda out of the blue?
|
On October 17 2016 11:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:18 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 11:06 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
here's some reasons:
gambling addiction.
They think it provides more meaningful information than polling.
They're only betting on other country's stuff.
as a hedge against risk.
they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone. Actually, I read the post you were replying to, I wanted to initially respond to that but you seemed to be in agreement with him on the part I disagreed with (that betting on an election is morally wrong) so I replied to you instead. I don't post in this thread much because I don't know enough about politics to contribute, but I've read this thread continuously for the past month or so, it moves incredibly fast, to the point that I often end up wanting to write something only to find that there's 3 new pages by the time I've finished reading/digesting what I wanted to reply to. I say this to point out that I try not to frivolously interject into ongoing discussions. when discussing with someone, it's helpful to use parts of their point of view; and since he had that supposition, I provided reasons which worked with that supposition, and talked from within the framework he had started with. If I'm understanding you correctly that you were meeting him on his presupposition that betting elections on his immoral, this seems to be more or less what happened: Person 1: I believe A, and I believe A->B, so therefore B! Person 2: Granting that A is true, I don't think it's true that A -> B. Person 3 (to Person 2): I don't even believe A. Person 2 (to Person 3): You're an idiot. A = betting on elections is immoral B = people who bet on elections don't respect democracy. You get how that seemed kinda out of the blue?
there are some issues with your assessment, but this discussion does not seem interesting or productive, so why can't we just let it drop?
|
On October 17 2016 11:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:26 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 11:18 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 11:06 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
[quote]
.. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable.
I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce.
Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess.
I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone. Actually, I read the post you were replying to, I wanted to initially respond to that but you seemed to be in agreement with him on the part I disagreed with (that betting on an election is morally wrong) so I replied to you instead. I don't post in this thread much because I don't know enough about politics to contribute, but I've read this thread continuously for the past month or so, it moves incredibly fast, to the point that I often end up wanting to write something only to find that there's 3 new pages by the time I've finished reading/digesting what I wanted to reply to. I say this to point out that I try not to frivolously interject into ongoing discussions. when discussing with someone, it's helpful to use parts of their point of view; and since he had that supposition, I provided reasons which worked with that supposition, and talked from within the framework he had started with. If I'm understanding you correctly that you were meeting him on his presupposition that betting elections on his immoral, this seems to be more or less what happened: Person 1: I believe A, and I believe A->B, so therefore B! Person 2: Granting that A is true, I don't think it's true that A -> B. Person 3 (to Person 2): I don't even believe A. Person 2 (to Person 3): You're an idiot. A = betting on elections is immoral B = people who bet on elections don't respect democracy. You get how that seemed kinda out of the blue? there are some issues with your assessment, but this discussion does not seem interesting or productive, so why can't we just let it drop?
Agreed, moving on.
|
On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/
Trump's definitely a long shot, but his path to victory (which isn't really captured by the polls) would be a significant decrease in black voter turnout. There's a map (538's I think) where you can adjust things like that. It would take a big decrease, but not that much more than back to 2004 levels.
Many of the polls are estimating black voter turnout at or near Obama 08/12 levels, so there's a good chance the outcome ends up much closer than the polls, almost guaranteed neither candidate gets the support of a majority of the voters.
Black support of Clinton isn't nearly as active as Obama and there's always the possibility the idea that it's a lock for Clinton further depresses turnout. Boils down to more of Trump's base+Republicans consistently voting no matter what, when compared to Hillary's base +Democrats (particularly younger ones of color).
From the beginning of the head to head it's been a turnout race for Trump with Hillary trying to take away some of his reliable older voters. That's kind of why the polls have been somewhat pointless to look at without having the estimated electorate for context.
Part of the reason McCain and Romney were shocked by the electorate is because the facet of the polling they were talking about but didn't say explicitly was black voters, Republicans refused to believe black voters would increase their voting percentages so much (or hold them in the case of Romney). Democrats are at risk of refusing to believe (young) Black (and other PoC) turnout may drop significantly for Hillary when compared to Obama.
Trump's probably going to lose, but the polls being wrong is going to be one of many stories historians will look at for generations.
EDIT: He would need a little help from non-college white men too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
