| 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. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:27 Plansix wrote: Um their case sucked and they didn't like that they couldn't proceed. Yes, I'm sure you know the details of the case and the evidence presented, Plansix. I trust the FBI, not the DOJ. There is plenty of reason to do so. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:23 biology]major wrote: Why would they go through the media if they couldn't go through the DOJ? There could be any number of reasons why the FBI Trumpkins did it. I can't actually know why, but Lou Dobbs makes clear they did come to him (or whoever tells Lou Dobbs what to say) and give him the 99% number. Some speculation on why: (1) The FBI Trumpkins are Trumpkins and hate Hillary. They want to harm her and her campaign. They push out this number to friendly media and Lou Dobbs make sure every conservative in America knows the 99% number. (2) They didn't go through the DOJ because the DOJ didn't believe them when they tried. Check out the WSJ article where the FBI agents get laughed out of the room when they try to sell the DOJ on charges based on the "Clinton Cash" book. | ||
KwarK
United States42985 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:28 Sermokala wrote: But it wasn't. For better or for worse once there are questions asked about the impartially of an investigation you either need to confirm your right to secret investigation or open the doors to disprove the acusations. The FBI and Comey went for transparency and declared that they closed the investigation which was a boost for Hillary. Once more evidence came to him he was forced to reopen and retract that public statement. If he had kept his secrecy from the start people would be only softly asking questions and conspiracy theory weaving about her emails expecially with wiki leaks propelling the story. That's nothing to do with the Bill/Lynch meeting. It doesn't respond at all to what I wrote. I wonder if you even read it. Lynch wasn't involved. Bill met Lynch. Lynch wasn't involved. My post is just saying that the outcome of Bill's meeting with Lynch was that nothing changed. You're talking about Comey, the outcome, the reopening and a bunch of other things that have no bearing on what I said. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13993 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:20 LegalLord wrote: Nate was lucky. Statistically sound, but very, very lucky; see my earlier mega-post. And if you trust him, even he says this election is too close to call. You can't argue luck in the face of mountains of statistics. I would argue a tie would mean pence wins in the Senate after Evan McMullan and absentee votes deny someone a majority. No one in a moderate district will survive in 2 years if they vote trump. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42985 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:32 Sermokala wrote: You can't argue luck in the face of mountains of statistics. I would argue a tie would mean pence wins in the Senate after Evan McMullan and absentee votes deny someone a majority. No one in a moderate district will survive in 2 years if they vote trump. You can, you don't understand. Nate himself admits he was very lucky. He assigned probability and ranges. He didn't pick the winners as 100% sure things, it doesn't work like that. If you have an 80% chance to win something and you only play once and you win, you got lucky. Your 80% chance was converted into a 100% outcome. Similarly if you lose, you got unlucky, you started with 20% equity and lost it all. There is no "as expected" outcome on a single run of an 80% chance, you'd need to run it more times to get that. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:32 Sermokala wrote: You can't argue luck in the face of mountains of statistics. I would argue a tie would mean pence wins in the Senate after Evan McMullan and absentee votes deny someone a majority. No one in a moderate district will survive in 2 years if they vote trump. He was lucky that his predictions happened to be highly Obama-favored and the polls underestimated Obama. He straight up said that if the polling error margin were the same in the other direction (3 percent more favorable for Romney) then he would have failed horribly and Romney would have probably won. I say that despite how much I've praised him and his statistical merits. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:33 LegalLord wrote: A factor in the 538 model that is also relevant is that McMullin support took a nosedive in the past few days. My understanding is most of the model's change are people dropping Johnson, Stein and McMullin and those voters have gone largely to Trump (perhaps because of the recent releases). Clinton's Popular Vote amount has only gone from 49.5% to 48.5% while Trump has gone from 43% -> 45%. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13993 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:31 KwarK wrote: That's nothing to do with the Bill/Lynch meeting. It doesn't respond at all to what I wrote. I wonder if you even read it. Lynch wasn't involved. Bill met Lynch. Lynch wasn't involved. My post is just saying that the outcome of Bill's meeting with Lynch was that nothing changed. You're talking about Comey, the outcome, the reopening and a bunch of other things that have no bearing on what I said. How is Lynch not involved? She's literally the other party out of two in the incident. I'm talking about the investigation that was commented on after the incident happened and her comments on it connecting the incident to it if bill being her husband didn't connect it in the first place. It doesn't matter if nothing changed its about the doj head who by her very post had some level of influence on the department and the people in it. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:29 biology]major wrote: Yes, I'm sure you know the details of the case and the evidence presented, Plansix. I trust the FBI, not the DOJ. There is plenty of reason to do so. By leaking the information to the press in an attempt to sway the election they broke the law. Law enforcement is prohibited from doing that. But you have shown that you don't care at all. You will support trump, even if he said that all reporters that criticized him will be brought up charges of treason. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:23 biology]major wrote: Why would they go through the media if they couldn't go through the DOJ? the same reason the house is going through all this crap about clinton's emails and such instead of appointing an independent prosecutor. there's no evidence and no case. this way they make it look like smoke with a fog machine and trick people to assuming there's a fire. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:28 oBlade wrote: It's easy for Trump to win because the states vote as blocks and you only need 26. That's the VP. The house picks the president and Republicans will for sure control the house because he house is basically rigged in their favor at the moment so he wins a tie. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5674 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote: How can people be so idiotic that the most recent news is what drives their vote? Because they're not entrenched in battle lines. Is this only a problem now? All the polls have done for the past year is chart how people react to news. On November 04 2016 03:40 Adreme wrote: That's the VP. The house picks the president and Republicans will for sure control the house because he house is basically rigged in their favor at the moment so he wins a tie. ...The House vote to pick the president is a vote among the 50 state blocks, not of the 435 representatives directly. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13993 Posts
Your unlucky if you fail a 4 out of 5 chance when you can't effect the outcome. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:38 Plansix wrote: By leaking the information to the press in an attempt to sway the election they broke the law. Law enforcement is prohibited from doing that. But you have shown that you don't care at all. You will support trump, even if he said that all reporters that criticized him will be brought up charges of treason. If the FBI was trying to investigate Trump and was rejected by the DOJ, and then leaked shit to the media I'm sure you would be saying the same thing. Even more hypocritical is your stance on enforcement of laws, given this whole predicament is founded on HRC's negligence of the law. No, I am highly against Trump banning any media outlets, I am all for his criticism of them. The DoJ, and the Clinton cartel are not worthy of trust, the FBI is. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42985 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote: How is Lynch not involved? She's literally the other party out of two in the incident. I'm talking about the investigation that was commented on after the incident happened and her comments on it connecting the incident to it if bill being her husband didn't connect it in the first place. It doesn't matter if nothing changed its about the doj head who by her very post had some level of influence on the department and the people in it. Okay. So, Lynch stated she wouldn't involve herself because she was a political appointee. Then she proceeded to not involve herself. If she had been involving herself then the scandal would have happened then, but it didn't because she wasn't. To avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing she preemptively stepped aside and said that she would do whatever Comey recommended. Then, later on, Bill met with Lynch. Then people screamed that she was going to rig the investigation so she again reminded them that it wasn't her investigation, that she wasn't involved and that she wasn't going to make any kind of judgement call and would instead do whatever Comey recommended. And yet this rumour that Bill bullied Lynch into rigging the investigation that the DoJ wasn't handling and that she wasn't involved into persists. It's absolutely inexplicable. Lynch was already not involved and then after Bill met her everyone was looking for signs that she was involved and found absolutely none because she still wasn't involved. It's not quite as crazy as the Uranium One theory because at least it doesn't involve time travel, but it is batshit insane. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42985 Posts
On November 04 2016 03:41 Sermokala wrote: If you give some out of five chance to win and they win it's not surprising or unreasonable to expect that you will win. Nate sliver gave a projection and the results fell in a reasonable slice of that projection. Your unlucky if you fail a 4 out of 5 chance when you can't effect the outcome. But you're lucky if you win a 4 out of 5 chance. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Barracks vs Mini
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Clem vs Reynor
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
