|
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. |
Canada11349 Posts
On October 27 2016 07:54 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:On October 27 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 27 2016 07:31 Aquanim wrote:
Does the one word "socialist" sink Sanders in your country for the general? Let me put it this way: "socialist" is to the US as "racist" is to Europe. The stigma behind the word "socialism" is one of the major tools the Republican party uses to continue getting people to vote against policy that's against their own interest. The stigma against "socialism" and "communism" results in people being irrationally afraid of changes that would benefit them the most. Aint that the truth. It's particularly silly when you consider that the very same people being fooled by the stigma also tend to be the people who believe in Jesus' teachings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jesus were alive today he'd be all about socialism.
I think you'd find his teachings largely apolitical- obey whoever it is that is in authority, unless they forbid you from preaching the gospel or force you to deny Christ. The particular political system one finds oneself under is irrelevant to the work of Christ.
|
On October 27 2016 10:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 09:50 KwarK wrote:On October 27 2016 09:19 biology]major wrote:On October 27 2016 09:00 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 08:59 On_Slaught wrote:On October 27 2016 08:49 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 08:46 On_Slaught wrote:On October 27 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 08:22 biology]major wrote:
The electoral map for trump is so brutal, it's unreal. Even if the national poll has trump leading or tied, the electoral nightmare persists. how is that? iirc electoral map favors republicans if the vote numbers are equal due to more low population states being republican. but i haven't really looked at the details in awhile. Electoral map was massively in Clintons favor coming into this race. Trump just made it harder by virtue of him running the worst campaign in history. was the electoral map favorable for clinton even assuming equal total vote numbers? my impression is that he was talking about equal total popular vote numbers. How would you even measure this? Vote distribution is what matters and equal votes tells you nothing about it. So how would we know it favors Trump? that's beside the point, I was responding to someone and was working through the issue. I just saw some guy explaining path to 270 on CNN and even if he got Florida, NC, PA, Ohio, Iowa, Utah, NV and some others he is still short. Mission impossible I've been saying this for a long time. His paths to victory are either all 6 competitive states + NH or 4/5 of the competitive states and PA. Trump knows this, there was an article a few weeks ago explaining that he'd pulled his resources from all but PA, FL, OH and NC, all of which are must win for him if he wants to pursue that route. And PA isn't even remotely competitive. He's incredibly fucked. edit: this is his most probable path to victory + Show Spoiler +On October 05 2016 23:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 22:08 Incognoto wrote:
Whoever gets Ohio wins the election. This is a known fact. If Hillary gets Ohio she wins. But if Trump gets Ohio and doesn't also get Florida and North Carolina Hillary wins. As I said yesterday, there are five key swing states, Florida(29), Ohio(18), North Carolina(15), Nevada(6) and Iowa(6). If he loses Florida it doesn't matter if he wins the other four. Even with New Hampshire and Michigan flipping and Massachusetts split evenly he still loses without Florida. If we assume Michigan and New Hampshire won't flip Trump needs to go 5/5 on the above states. Assuming Pennsylvania stays a Hillary stronghold that is. and it's not probable + Show Spoiler [another electoral college math post] +On October 13 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:So, on a politics note, Trump is pulling out of all states but North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Here's the problem with that. The last three polls in Pennsylvania put Trump 9 points behind, 10 points behind and 11 points behind. 538 put his chances of winning Pennsylvania at this point outside of the margin of error. Polling is an inaccurate science but it wouldn't just take inaccurate polling at this point, it'd take a completely unexpected outside factor. Incidentally Clinton is outspending Trump in Pennsylvania 20:1. I wrote previously about how if we assume that he doesn't win Pennsylvania, an assumption I'm sticking with, he needs to win all the red states and Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. He's currently losing hard in Nevada (and added Arizona to the list, despite it previously being pretty solidly red). This is essentially an allin bet on Pennsylvania from what I can see. If he flips it that's 20 electoral college votes. If he loses all three of the competitive states he's no longer ahead in, Iowa, Nevada and now Arizona, that's 21 electoral college votes. + Show Spoiler [electoral math] +Texas - 38 - Total so far 38 Georgia - 16 - 54 Indiana - 11 - 65 Tennessee - 11 - 76 Missouri - 10 - 86 South Carolina - 9 - 95 Alabama - 9 - 104 Kentucky - 8 - 112 Louisiana - 8 - 120 Oklahoma - 7 - 127 Arkansas - 6 - 133 Utah - 6 - 139 Kansas - 6 - 145 Mississippi - 6 - 151 West Virginia - 5 - 156 Nebraska - 5 - 161 Idaho - 4 - 165 Montana - 3 - 168 Wyoming - 3 - 171 North Dakota - 3 - 174 South Dakota - 3 - 177 Alaska - 3 - 180 That means he has to get 90 more from the following pool Florida - 29 Pennsylvania - 20 Ohio - 18 North Carolina - 15 Arizona - 11 Nevada - 6 Iowa - 6 Maine - 1 (1 competitive electoral college vote) Even if he wins Pennsylvania, which he won't, it doesn't matter unless the other swing states he's no longer campaigning in win themselves. + Show Spoiler [best case scenario for Trump, 6/6 comp…] +http://www.270towin.com/maps/W3Krg Conclusion in case anyone didn't bother to read. If we give Trump all 6 of the competitive states he wants, even though he's behind in all 6 of them today, and we give him the Maine vote, he'll get 266 electoral college votes. To win at this point he'd also have to flip a Clinton safe state, like New Hampshire. Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive races to win the Presidency. yeah well no one reads your well thought out posts kwark, I'm gonna instead trust #CNN. But really though he is fucked and it's a sad moment in our country's history. In 4 years the Clinton tentacles will have spread all across our government and bill will be banging some other intern(s).
there's been a lot of far worse moments in our country's history, and it's better than trump winning.
I'll have to call that good enough.
|
|
|
United States42653 Posts
On October 27 2016 10:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 09:50 KwarK wrote:On October 27 2016 09:19 biology]major wrote:On October 27 2016 09:00 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 08:59 On_Slaught wrote:On October 27 2016 08:49 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 08:46 On_Slaught wrote:On October 27 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 08:22 biology]major wrote:
The electoral map for trump is so brutal, it's unreal. Even if the national poll has trump leading or tied, the electoral nightmare persists. how is that? iirc electoral map favors republicans if the vote numbers are equal due to more low population states being republican. but i haven't really looked at the details in awhile. Electoral map was massively in Clintons favor coming into this race. Trump just made it harder by virtue of him running the worst campaign in history. was the electoral map favorable for clinton even assuming equal total vote numbers? my impression is that he was talking about equal total popular vote numbers. How would you even measure this? Vote distribution is what matters and equal votes tells you nothing about it. So how would we know it favors Trump? that's beside the point, I was responding to someone and was working through the issue. I just saw some guy explaining path to 270 on CNN and even if he got Florida, NC, PA, Ohio, Iowa, Utah, NV and some others he is still short. Mission impossible I've been saying this for a long time. His paths to victory are either all 6 competitive states + NH or 4/5 of the competitive states and PA. Trump knows this, there was an article a few weeks ago explaining that he'd pulled his resources from all but PA, FL, OH and NC, all of which are must win for him if he wants to pursue that route. And PA isn't even remotely competitive. He's incredibly fucked. edit: this is his most probable path to victory + Show Spoiler +On October 05 2016 23:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 22:08 Incognoto wrote:
Whoever gets Ohio wins the election. This is a known fact. If Hillary gets Ohio she wins. But if Trump gets Ohio and doesn't also get Florida and North Carolina Hillary wins. As I said yesterday, there are five key swing states, Florida(29), Ohio(18), North Carolina(15), Nevada(6) and Iowa(6). If he loses Florida it doesn't matter if he wins the other four. Even with New Hampshire and Michigan flipping and Massachusetts split evenly he still loses without Florida. If we assume Michigan and New Hampshire won't flip Trump needs to go 5/5 on the above states. Assuming Pennsylvania stays a Hillary stronghold that is. and it's not probable + Show Spoiler [another electoral college math post] +On October 13 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:So, on a politics note, Trump is pulling out of all states but North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Here's the problem with that. The last three polls in Pennsylvania put Trump 9 points behind, 10 points behind and 11 points behind. 538 put his chances of winning Pennsylvania at this point outside of the margin of error. Polling is an inaccurate science but it wouldn't just take inaccurate polling at this point, it'd take a completely unexpected outside factor. Incidentally Clinton is outspending Trump in Pennsylvania 20:1. I wrote previously about how if we assume that he doesn't win Pennsylvania, an assumption I'm sticking with, he needs to win all the red states and Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. He's currently losing hard in Nevada (and added Arizona to the list, despite it previously being pretty solidly red). This is essentially an allin bet on Pennsylvania from what I can see. If he flips it that's 20 electoral college votes. If he loses all three of the competitive states he's no longer ahead in, Iowa, Nevada and now Arizona, that's 21 electoral college votes. + Show Spoiler [electoral math] +Texas - 38 - Total so far 38 Georgia - 16 - 54 Indiana - 11 - 65 Tennessee - 11 - 76 Missouri - 10 - 86 South Carolina - 9 - 95 Alabama - 9 - 104 Kentucky - 8 - 112 Louisiana - 8 - 120 Oklahoma - 7 - 127 Arkansas - 6 - 133 Utah - 6 - 139 Kansas - 6 - 145 Mississippi - 6 - 151 West Virginia - 5 - 156 Nebraska - 5 - 161 Idaho - 4 - 165 Montana - 3 - 168 Wyoming - 3 - 171 North Dakota - 3 - 174 South Dakota - 3 - 177 Alaska - 3 - 180 That means he has to get 90 more from the following pool Florida - 29 Pennsylvania - 20 Ohio - 18 North Carolina - 15 Arizona - 11 Nevada - 6 Iowa - 6 Maine - 1 (1 competitive electoral college vote) Even if he wins Pennsylvania, which he won't, it doesn't matter unless the other swing states he's no longer campaigning in win themselves. + Show Spoiler [best case scenario for Trump, 6/6 comp…] +http://www.270towin.com/maps/W3Krg Conclusion in case anyone didn't bother to read. If we give Trump all 6 of the competitive states he wants, even though he's behind in all 6 of them today, and we give him the Maine vote, he'll get 266 electoral college votes. To win at this point he'd also have to flip a Clinton safe state, like New Hampshire. Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive races to win the Presidency. yeah well no one reads your well thought out posts kwark, I'm gonna instead trust #CNN. But really though he is fucked and it's a sad moment in our country's history. In 4 years the Clinton tentacles will have spread all across our government and bill will be banging some other intern(s).
Maths doesn't depend on trust, unfortunately for Trump. It just is.
|
agreed it seems very unlikely.
I see no reason for Obama to use the lame duck pardons on the likes of Assange.
|
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden?
|
On October 27 2016 10:37 Nevuk wrote:
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden?
iirc Assange hasn't been formally charged with anything yet (and may never be); though I think it's possible to pardon people for stuff they haven't been charged with yet.
|
On October 27 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 10:37 Nevuk wrote:
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden? iirc Assange hasn't been formally charged with anything yet (and may never be); though I think it's possible to pardon people for stuff they haven't been charged with yet.
It depends, but yes, in the US you can be pardoned before any charges are up. Famous example is Nixon.
Other countries allow pardons only after charges have been brought up, or only after trial has finished.
|
On October 27 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 10:37 Nevuk wrote:
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden? iirc Assange hasn't been formally charged with anything yet (and may never be); though I think it's possible to pardon people for stuff they haven't been charged with yet.
Ford did it for Nixon, but it was pretty questionable. It is hard to legally justify pardoning someone for something they have not been convicted for. Or charged with.
|
On October 27 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 10:37 Nevuk wrote:
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden? iirc Assange hasn't been formally charged with anything yet (and may never be); though I think it's possible to pardon people for stuff they haven't been charged with yet.
Isn't he facing rape charges in Sweden and that's why he's been hiding out in the ecuadorian embassy?
|
On October 27 2016 10:46 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 10:37 Nevuk wrote:
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden? iirc Assange hasn't been formally charged with anything yet (and may never be); though I think it's possible to pardon people for stuff they haven't been charged with yet. Isn't he facing rape charges in Sweden and that's why he's been hiding out in the ecuadorian embassy?
Didn't the statute of limitations expire on his sexual assault charge already? But all of this seems irrelevant cause how would Obama pardon him...
|
On October 27 2016 10:46 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 10:37 Nevuk wrote:
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden? iirc Assange hasn't been formally charged with anything yet (and may never be); though I think it's possible to pardon people for stuff they haven't been charged with yet. Isn't he facing rape charges in Sweden and that's why he's been hiding out in the ecuadorian embassy?
I think they were looking to question him based on accusations and not formally charge him. The statute of limitations on the case has passed but an investigation in some capacity is still undergoing. But I don't see how Obama could pardon an Australian national holed up in the UK in the Ecuadorian embassy facing alleged charges from Sweden in the first place.
|
On October 27 2016 10:46 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:On October 27 2016 10:37 Nevuk wrote:
What is Assange even charged with that Obama could pardon? Did he mean Snowden? iirc Assange hasn't been formally charged with anything yet (and may never be); though I think it's possible to pardon people for stuff they haven't been charged with yet. Isn't he facing rape charges in Sweden and that's why he's been hiding out in the ecuadorian embassy?
he's facing 4 such charges in sweden; iirc 3 of them have expired to statute of limitations, one has not.
part of his claim is that he doesn't want to be extradited to sweden for fear that sweden will extradite him to america.
personally, I don't like someone running for statute of limitation purposes. I prefer to stop the countdown on that if a person has fled. or at least slow it down.
|
On October 27 2016 07:54 Barrin wrote:
It's particularly silly when you consider that the very same people being fooled by the stigma also tend to be the people who believe in Jesus' teachings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jesus were alive today he'd be all about socialism.
Claiming that "if Jesus were alive today, he'd say X" is extremely disrespectful unless X is something he was actually recorded as saying.
|
On October 27 2016 10:51 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:54 Barrin wrote:
It's particularly silly when you consider that the very same people being fooled by the stigma also tend to be the people who believe in Jesus' teachings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jesus were alive today he'd be all about socialism.
Claiming that "if Jesus were alive today, he'd say X" is extremely disrespectful unless X is something he was actually recorded as saying.
while it is a bit off, a lot of the stuff Jesus is reputed to have said is very socialist. (since his words weren't actually directly recorded by anyone)
|
On October 27 2016 10:23 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:54 Barrin wrote:On October 27 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:On October 27 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 27 2016 07:31 Aquanim wrote:
Does the one word "socialist" sink Sanders in your country for the general? Let me put it this way: "socialist" is to the US as "racist" is to Europe. The stigma behind the word "socialism" is one of the major tools the Republican party uses to continue getting people to vote against policy that's against their own interest. The stigma against "socialism" and "communism" results in people being irrationally afraid of changes that would benefit them the most. Aint that the truth. It's particularly silly when you consider that the very same people being fooled by the stigma also tend to be the people who believe in Jesus' teachings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jesus were alive today he'd be all about socialism. I think you'd find his teachings largely apolitical- obey whoever it is that is in authority, unless they forbid you from preaching the gospel or force you to deny Christ. The particular political system one finds oneself under is irrelevant to the work of Christ.
I'll agree that they're largely apolitical in terms of our partisan politics, except where such politics infringes upon decency. For instance, Jesus says we need to care for the poor. That allows for both right and left wing ideas about how to best help the poor. What it does not allow for is the Ayn Randian view of "fuck the poor, they deserve poverty."
Jesus was also in favor of protest against political injustice, and opposed the corrupt political order of his day. He by no means advocated unthinking obedience to authorities. He recommended paying taxes, which was as far as he went that way. Remember: he wasn't executed for saying we should love each other... it was his prophetic threat against the injustices toward the poor committed by the Roman-mandated Jerusalem power structure.
|
On October 27 2016 10:59 Yoav wrote:
Remember: he wasn't executed for saying we should love each other... it was his prophetic threat against the injustices toward the poor committed by the Roman-mandated Jerusalem power structure.
Well, that and publicly calling two of the major parties hypocrites.
|
On this Jesus topic, I find Supply-Side Jesus a somewhat relevant comic to search up.
|
Yes, that does look extremely disrespectful.
|
Ah, the most American, free market Jesus. Supply-Side Jesus because he is the most in demand and his version of salvation the best on the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/screen-shot-2016-10-03-at-10-29-28-am.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1)
