EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5872
| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
https://mobile.twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/793827527378759680 this tweet's responses are hilarious btw. berners and trumpers attacking clinton at the same time. corporate shill or leftist? we may never know | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:03 IgnE wrote: do you think inequality after hillary's 2017-2021 term will be greater or less than than it is now? Unless you want to get into useless hypotheticals just to attempt to prove a non point, this question is pointless. The question to ask is "do you think inequality after hillary's 2017-2021 term will be greater or less than it would be after a trump term?" And the answer is less, plus we're at least guaranteed to still have a country. | ||
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
It'll happen at some point. But her tax plans and her minimum wage hike are huge for working on inequality. I don't know that she can singlehandedly stem the tide but she's certainly got work on that issue in her platform. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:03 IgnE wrote: do you think inequality after hillary's 2017-2021 term will be greater or less than than it is now? Probably order, but I attribute that to the fact that I have no faith in Congress to do anything about anything. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:03 IgnE wrote: do you think inequality after hillary's 2017-2021 term will be greater or less than than it is now? higher inequality in the rural parts, better wages for low income, better for uppermid. basically standard. key will be antitrust and small/mid business environment. i am not expecting any big land related reforms and antitrust has to be in form of encouraging destruction from competition. a lot of industries might be too far gone and too shielded. more utility style oversight is needed in hospitals and telecom etc she has to fight ryan on overseas taxation. must prioritize cooperative intl tax structure vs short term squabble over whose tax base is it on kngoing cases. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
That doesn't seem quite right to me though. Among other reasons, they come from running a simulated version of the election 10000 times and calculating totals, rather than assigning a prior probability at the beginning of the race and then doing Bayesian updating. Problem is, I don't really know what they represent. Nate Silver talks about it like a frequentist probability (e.g. comparing Trump's ~17% chance to Russian Roulette), but I'm not really clear what variables his simulation is changing randomly to produce random results. Like, is it modeling individual demographics' preference and turnout as normal curves, and randomly generating values for each demographic? Determining an average and standard deviation for each state's poll numbers, and then randomly generating results state-by-state? It kinda seems like it's movement up or down is meaningful, and when it's at 50% it's probably even, but otherwise the precise value doesn't mean much | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote: this tweet's responses are hilarious btw. berners and trumpers attacking clinton at the same time. corporate shill or leftist? we may never know This has been true for a long time. She's been called both a left-wing extremist and a fake progressive at the same time. The answer to "corporate shill or leftist?" is "both, depending on which is politically convenient for her". The fact that giving both sides a little of what they want is no longer acceptable signifies how much the discourse has been poisoned by extremism--neither side sees compromise as an acceptable option and a centrist who tries to give both sides some of what they want (admittedly, probably more for her own political gain than in the spirit of compromise) is seen as the enemy of both extremes. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote: given recent fbi behavior, there is a case for the kwark position on trump and fascism. https://mobile.twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/793827527378759680 this tweet's responses are hilarious btw. berners and trumpers attacking clinton at the same time. corporate shill or leftist? we may never know I'd say commander in chief and law enforcement powers are the most dangerous aspects of a Trump presidency. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:09 hunts wrote: Unless you want to get into useless hypotheticals just to attempt to prove a non point, this question is pointless. The question to ask is "do you think inequality after hillary's 2017-2021 term will be greater or less than it would be after a trump term?" And the answer is less, plus we're at least guaranteed to still have a country. its not hypothetical. clinton will be president. stop being stupid. this isn't about who to vote for. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:17 TheYango wrote: This has been true for a long time. She's been called both a left-wing extremist and a fake progressive at the same time. The answer to "corporate shill or leftist?" is "both, depending on which is politically convenient for her". The fact that giving both sides a little of what they want is no longer acceptable signifies how much the discourse has been poisoned by extremism--neither side sees compromise as an acceptable option and a centrist who tries to give both sides some of what (admittedly, probably more for her own political gain than in the spirit of compromise) they want is seen as the enemy of both extremes. she does have a coherent moderate position of her own though. it is basically left of center economics plus a dash of industrial policy | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:22 Doodsmack wrote: I'd say commander in chief and law enforcement powers are the most dangerous aspects of a Trump presidency. Just think of the FBI and CIA directors he would appoint and would get rubber stamped through by the senate. It is a nightmare to even contemplate. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:17 oneofthem wrote: infrastructure spending prob good for reducing inequality in really hard hit areas, need much more public transport though. might need to take on various unions to do so. you are talking about factors that would influence inequality. i want a yes or no from you on whether you think hillary acting as president will reduce inequality by the end of her term. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:15 ChristianS wrote: Someone in the thread was saying recently (I forget who, sorry) that the 538 election probabilities are Bayesian probabilities, that is they indicate a "degree of belief" chance rather than a frequentist "how many times out of 100" probability. That doesn't seem quite right to me though. Among other reasons, they come from running a simulated version of the election 10000 times and calculating totals, rather than assigning a prior probability at the beginning of the race and then doing Bayesian updating. Problem is, I don't really know what they represent. Nate Silver talks about it like a frequentist probability (e.g. comparing Trump's ~17% chance to Russian Roulette), but I'm not really clear what variables his simulation is changing randomly to produce random results. Like, is it modeling individual demographics' preference and turnout as normal curves, and randomly generating values for each demographic? Determining an average and standard deviation for each state's poll numbers, and then randomly generating results state-by-state? It kinda seems like it's movement up or down is meaningful, and when it's at 50% it's probably even, but otherwise the precise value doesn't mean much I think they're Bayesian, just reasoning from a prior of complete ignorance (which is basically what all frequentism is). Which is probably a fair prior in this setting. The frequencies the model creates are based upon t distributions, I think, with correlation between each states' vote results based upon demographics. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:26 IgnE wrote: you are talking about factors that would influence inequality. i want a yes or no from you on whether you think hillary acting as president will reduce inequality by the end of her term. that would really depend on what policies are put into practice, the macro conditions etc. there are various trends at play. not sure, working on it, probably still increase overall but lower at the low end of income would be my answer. that better wage increase for the lowest is a combination of lower immigration and minimum wage increase. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
legalize and regulate when it comes to the nsa stuff. they are not that bad. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On November 03 2016 02:22 Doodsmack wrote: I'd say commander in chief and law enforcement powers are the most dangerous aspects of a Trump presidency. Don't forget all the utterly incompetent and unqualified people he'll be putting in positions of power. Just listen to his pundits. Can you imagine them running anything? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
| ||
