EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5945
| 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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 07 2016 01:58 oneofthem wrote: yea instead of improving agriculture practices, stopping ravaging diseases, and improving real lives you'd become a real revolutionary. good job Yeah I think I'd rather stew in my billionaire's guilt than try and alleviate it by spending a fraction of my wealth improving the short-term prospects of real lives in Africa. At least when you are Kurtz you can sublimate that guilt by submerging your consciousness in the stream of the Other. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 07 2016 02:06 IgnE wrote: Yeah I think I'd rather stew in my billionaire's guilt than try and alleviate it by spending a fraction of my wealth improving the short-term prospects of real lives in Africa. At least when you are Kurtz you can sublimate that guilt by submerging your consciousness in the stream of the Other. large scale philanthropy can be a real systemic improvement vs simple personal feel good boost. if billionaires take 70% of their positional and whatever rent and direct that spending towards developmental objectives, wealth concentration would not be that bad. it's privately funded government, at least the services aspect. another way of rejecting this 'philanthrpy not real' idea is to think of it as a high wealth tax on very high wealth individuals. if you take the effect, say, a 70% wealth donation rate, as government policy, a bunch of leftists would be on board. it's just that they probably see it as an act of revenge or punishment and value that theatrical morality more than the actual impact. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
It would be interesting to see a philanthropical experiment where a multibillionaire basically sets up a worker-owned mine in an African country and helps form a government that allows the people of that nation to develop it themselves. A kind of extranational billionaire Cincinnatus. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 07 2016 02:18 IgnE wrote: Benevolent and effective monarchs have been an historical possibility since the Copper Age. you are just going off of this 'all wealth is generated by power' spiel. wrong and uninteresting. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 07 2016 02:21 oneofthem wrote: you are just going off of this 'all wealth is generated by power' spiel. wrong and uninteresting. I don't know what you mean by "all wealth is generated by power" so I'm going to assume that you don't know what the spiel is. You are supposed to say I'm a Marxist who believes in the outdated labor theory of value anyway. "All wealth is generated by the proletariat." | ||
KwarK
United States43529 Posts
xDaunt wrote: Clinton is bad because you don't get investigated by the FBI unless you did something really shady. kwizach wrote: But Trump is also being investigated by the FBI. Did he do something really shady? xDaunt wrote: No. Election in a nutshell. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
People saying things that are patently untrue/unjustified have been getting mod action'd more. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On November 07 2016 02:41 zlefin wrote: I don't think you missed anything specific, but they have started enforcing stricter standards. I think there were a few days leading up to this where they were more heavily warning people for shitposts. And now they've either upgraded to banning for them, or are banning people who were previously warned for them. People saying things that are patently untrue/unjustified have been getting mod action'd more. I see like 4 posts where people are like "Hey, the integrity of sources matter and yours are confirmed to be quite bad", and they get warned for it? Then OOT talks about dementia and gets banned? Did some moderator suddenly decide they've had enough with the election and decided to stop by the election thread or something? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
in hindsight, I notice more mod action has been done since I read those things. I don't feel like going back to review them thoroughly. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 07 2016 01:18 oneofthem wrote: carter foundation has more net assets than the clinton foundation, and the fundraising minus speech revenue for both is similar. that they raise similar money is actually demonstrating that active quid pro quo is not the major fundraising mechanism. it's rather active engagement with running the foundation by founders, good name and impact. I didn't realize that the Carter Center had that many assets. Still, the real difference between the two has been the continued involvement in politics by the Clintons since the establishment of the Clinton Foundation whereas Carter rode off into the sunset like pretty much every other former president. Again, Hillary was Secretary of State and is now running for president. Throw in all of the dealings of the Clinton Foundation that just look bad (regardless of their legality), and that's where the real appearance of impropriety comes from. But yes, the comparable revenue generation of the two foundation in terms of sheer amount does undercut the argument. That said, you can't look at those figures in a vacuum. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7958 Posts
On November 07 2016 01:29 Nebuchad wrote: I'm pretty sure the fact that I don't like you hasn't been part of my argument so far, I'm not sure why you bring that up. In those 51 predictions, how many do they disagree on? Well, I suspect you would have listened to what I have been saying the last three pages if there weren't something personal, so, yes you didn't bring it up your feelings but they sweat in your attitude. To answer your question, it changes all the time, because 538 in particular has a lot of states around the 50% mark. About the two models disagreeing right now, on top of Florida (538 gives a 52% chances to Trump while HP think Clinton has 91,6% chances to win it), we have: Ohio: 538 sees a 67% chance of Trump win. HP sees 57% of a Clinton win. Nevada: 539 51,5% Trump, HP 78,5% Clinton North Carolina: 538 52% Trump, HP 90% Clinton There might be others I am missing, and it might change in the next hours. You can check: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president#likely-votes-clinton http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ So now, for example, if 538 is right and Trump wins the four of them, we know for sure that their model is most certainly better than the Huff Post, because losing states in which you have 90%, 78,5%, 57% and 91,6 (Florida) chances to win is statistically extremely, extremely unlikely. That's why the Huff Post puts Clinton chances at 98,4%. What is interesting is that Silver problem with the HP forecast is that from what I understood they don't consider that polling errors in one state mean anything in another, which is a bit ludicrous. If polls underestimated Trump chances by 3 point in Colorado, for example (and that's very possible, it's a high but nonetheless normal margin of error), it is more than likely they also underestimated them in New Mexico and Arizona. That's why Trump chances are 35% according to 538, and 1,6% in the HP model. And again, I have nothing against you and never had and I am discussing in good faith. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
I'm still sceptical about Nate's close prediction after playing around with http://www.270towin.com/ today. If Clinton wins Michigan + Nevada or Michigan + NH, she wins. If she wins any larger battleground state she wins. Trump needs to basically flip everything. THis just seems very unlikely, especially with the high Hispanic turnout. Trump has to win Michigan, right? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ Looking at this, can you honestly say with 99 percent certainty that you expect Hillary to win? I sure can't. She is favored but absolutely, definitely vulnerable. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7958 Posts
On November 07 2016 03:15 Nyxisto wrote: I think they do calcuate interdependence between the states but not to the degree that Nate does. He puts a lot of weight on this, more than anybody else. I'm still sceptical about Nate's close prediction after playing around with http://www.270towin.com/ today. If Clinton wins Michigan + Nevada or Michigan + NH, she wins. If she wins any battleground state she basically wins. Trump needs to basically flip everything. THis just seems very unlikely, especially with the high Hispanic turnout. You can see why the HP guy is pissed at Silver when you consider how 538 has calculated the house effect of polsters in the Florida results: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/ in the last ten polls they have adjusted as follows: 5 polls unaffected +1, +2, +3; +3 and +4 ajustements for Trump. If you think that aggregators ajustements are unscientific, that's a lot. But personally, I trust Silver's methodology and I am certain he doesn't have an agenda in the way he corrects polsters. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 07 2016 03:17 IgnE wrote: Yeah I'd bet my life on Clinton in exchange for like $50k. Pretty confident. Hmm, let's poll this? Poll: Fair odds of a Clinton victory? 80-95% (17) 60-79.9% (15) >95% (2) 50-59.9% (1) <50% (0) 35 total votes Your vote: Fair odds of a Clinton victory? (Vote): >95% Edit: and I might as well link the results so far of my previous poll: On November 05 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote: I'm curious... Poll: Which statement best describes your candidate preference? I'm primarily voting (or would vote) for the candidate I do like. (17) I'm primarily voting (or would vote) against the candidate I don't like. (12) 29 total votes Your vote: Which statement best describes your candidate preference? (Vote): I'm primarily voting (or would vote) against the candidate I don't like. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
At the end of the day, I think 538 has let themselves deviate a bit too much from the math. A lot of their articles have been really click-baity these past couple months as they realize they can cash in. Nate Silver has so much to gain by making his model artificially inflate Trump's chances. People are constantly checking 538 to see how things are going. When things are close, or possible at least, people listen. | ||
| ||
