US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8539

On August 24 2017 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supporter-phoenix-rally-crowd-size-photos-fake-half-empty-room-us-president-a7907801.html?cmpid=facebook-post

On August 24 2017 07:02 Nyxisto wrote:


The errors were significantly worse than in previous election, where the model performed well, Wang wasn't any less accurate than Silver in the last two elections. The problem with tuning your prediction too heavily to fit specific data is that your model will generalise badly. It might just be the case that Nate Silver overshoots with his assumptions and his predictions in four years is less accurate. People who like the 'frequentist' approach like Wang generally aim to make accurate predictions from lots of data over the long term.

On August 24 2017 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


We had someone there that could comment on the crowd size right?

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/900177582779359232

On August 24 2017 05:10 mozoku wrote:
I'm pretty surprised that so many people are defending the journalism status quo. I think the current echo chamber flavor of journalism is quite self-evidently destructive for society. That isn't really a partisan issue at all.

Nor is it necessarily journalists' fault, but the system is clearly broken imo. And a lot of what oBlade said is fairly true (journalists wield a massive amount of power in society by nature of their position, there's no real implicit or explicit checks on them to ensure they use it vaguely in society's interest, and journalism is arguably the largest contributor to the current federal government's dysfunction).

I'd love to see some public debate on how to fix journalism.

On August 24 2017 08:07 mozoku wrote:
Second of all, the intellectually honest thing for Wang to do would be to say "my model predicts a 99% chance of HRC winning, but I'm relying on long-run averages of randomization of lots of elections to come up with that number--but my sample size is only ~14. Therefore, take my 99% prediction with a large grain of salt because 14 elections isn't enough to draw conclusions about the tails of polling error distributions." That isn't at all how it was presented though, so again Wang has no defense there.

President Donald Trump privately vented his frustration over Russia-related matters with at least two other Republican senators this month, according to people familiar with the conversations — in addition to the president's public admonishments of Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Jeff Flake.

Trump expressed frustration over a bipartisan bill sanctioning Russia and tried to convince Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that it wasn't good policy, according to three people familiar with the call. Trump argued that the legislation was unconstitutional and said it would damage his presidency. Corker was unrelenting, these people said, and told Trump the bill was going to pass both houses with bipartisan support.

"He was clearly frustrated," one person said of Trump’s call with Corker earlier this month. The bill cleared Congress overwhelmingly last month and Trump grudgingly signed it on Aug. 2.

Trump dialed up Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on Aug. 7, two days before a blunt call with the Senate majority leader that spilled over into a public feud. Tillis is working with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) on a bill designed to protect Robert Mueller, the independent counsel investigating the president's Russia connections, from any attempt by Trump to fire him.

The Mueller bill came up during the Tillis-Trump conversation, according to a source briefed on the call — the latest signal of the president's impatience with GOP senators' increasing declarations of independence from his White House. Trump was unhappy with the legislation and didn't want it to pass, one person familiar with the call said.

A Tillis spokesman confirmed the date of the senator's call with the president and later described the call as "cordial," saying other issues were discussed. A Corker spokeswoman described the late July conversation as a "productive conversation about the congressional review portion of the Russia sanctions bill."

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said, "We do not comment on private conversations the president has with members of Congress. We are committed to working together on tax relief, border security, strengthening the military, and other important issues." A separate statement from the White House press secretary Wednesday said that Trump and McConnell "will hold previously scheduled meetings following the August recess to discuss these critical items with members of the congressional leadership and the president’s Cabinet. White House and leadership staff are coordinating regarding the details of those meetings."

The earlier, private calls offer more evidence of Trump's uneasy relationship with congressional Republicans. Trump has angered McConnell with a damning critique of the Kentucky Republican's performance on repealing Obamacare and threats to try to take out Flake (R-Ariz.) — a vocal Trump critic — in a Republican primary next year.

Trump's chewing out of GOP senators, according to people briefed on the calls, reflected the president's frustration that fellow Republicans would make moves that could damage him, particularly on an investigation that he detests. Trump also complained about the Russian sanctions measure in a call with McConnell earlier this month that devolved into shouting. The New York Times first reported that Trump discussed the Russia probe with McConnell.

"It seems he is just always focused on Russia," one senior GOP aide said.

Since coming into the West Wing, chief of staff John Kelly has tried to curb Trump's unscheduled interactions with legislators, senior administration officials say. Trump has been known to see a senator on TV or think about an issue and immediately ask White House assistant Madeleine Westerhout to dial the senator.

But Kelly has asked that senior White House aides, such as legislative affairs head Marc Short, be present for the calls‚ and for Trump to be briefed in advance on the topic.

No matter what Kelly does, Trump and the Senate GOP are in for a rough September, a month that's shaping up as pivotal for his presidency. Along with his attacks on various Republican senators, Trump's aides and advisers are touting polls that show Congress is more unpopular than Trump is — and that they're prepared to run against the quintessential Washington institution.

Trump's insistence on funding his long-promised U.S.-Mexico border wall promises to further strain relations with Senate Republicans, who must secure at least eight Democratic votes to keep the government funded past Sept. 30. But the president appears unconcerned with helping McConnell navigate that challenge, declaring Tuesday night in Phoenix: "If we have to close down the government, we are going to build that wall."

Any wall funding will almost certainly be a deal-breaker for Senate Democrats. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois underscored that with tweets Tuesday rejecting reports of a potential White House-initiated immigration deal involving border wall funding.

Democrats, aware of their leverage heading into next month's talks on government funding, are urging McConnell and his GOP to ignore the president's threat.

On August 24 2017 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


We had someone there that could comment on the crowd size right?

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/900177582779359232

The Republican Party of Virginia on Wednesday attacked the Democratic candidate for governor, Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, for calling for the removal of Confederate statues from public spaces and their relocation into museums.

In two tweets the state GOP said that Northam was betraying his “heritage” by backing the removal of statues that represent slavery. The Democratic candidate had found out in recent months that his ancestors, who were farmers on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, owned slaves.

When Northam discovered the part his own family played in the history of slavery in June, he told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the revelation “disturbs and saddens me.”

Asked about the Virginia GOP’s tweets, Northam campaign press secretary Ofirah Yheskel said, “It’s a true shame to to see the party of Lincoln stoop so low.”

Northam also responded himself on Twitter.

The Virginia GOP took down the tweets hours after they were posted and apologized, saying they were “interpreted in a way we never intended.”

In the wake of the racist violence earlier this month in Charlottesville, Virginia, and President Donald Trump’s subsequent failure to swiftly condemn white nationalists, politicians in both parties have called for the removal of Confederate statues from public spaces.

Northam joined this chorus last week, despite previously taking the position that Confederate statue removal was a local issue.

“I support City of Charlottesville’s decision to remove the Robert E. Lee statue. I believe these statues should be taken down and moved into museums,” he said in a statement. “As governor, I am going to be a vocal advocate for that approach and work with localities on this issue.”

Northam’s Republican opponent, Ed Gillespie, believes that Confederate monuments should remain, but that local governments should be able to decide whether to remove them.

“I believe that decisions about historical statues are best made at the local level, but they should stay and be placed in historical context,” Gillespie said last week.

A Gillespie campaign spokesperson said in a statement that the Virginia GOP was right to take down its tweets.

“Though Ed disagrees with the Lieutenant Governor on the issue of statues, he knows we can disagree on issues like this without devolving into divisive rhetoric,” the statement read.

On August 24 2017 09:49 On_Slaught wrote:


Given the full size of the room, it was definitely less than half full. Having said that the picture on the left is a little unfair since it's taken from the back corner and at eye level. Here is what I saw from that same side of the room but on the opposite side to the right:

http://imgur.com/edit?deletehash=LNwc1Cb2ezgBv0O&album_id=GMYOV

That big black thing in the middle-left of the left picture is the press spot with all the cameras and reporters. Obviously you have the stage in the middle right. It was completely full up to those metal barriers you can see in the far right of the image. Basically everything in front of the press stand was more or less 'full.' Behind that it was basically empty minus some people sitting in wheel chairs or resting against the wall. Maybe a few dozen behind that.

Up close it definitely looks and feels packed:

http://imgur.com/edit?deletehash=T3JprjMDa17LlZW&album_id=iyi1w

But outside of the main area it was pretty barren. On each side of the stage were 3 'bleachers' of seats for people to sit on:

http://imgur.com/edit?deletehash=ebcPv05qp7ajKiG&album_id=ICIZj

It would be considered 'packed' up to those bleachers on each side (thet above pic was before the rally started and a bunch more people would show up still).

EDIT: This picture below appears to be accurate. However, it is very misleading as well. What you can't see is that behind the cameras is a good 100ft of open space you can't see. Those people in the very pack of the picture are likely standing against the wall.

https://twitter.com/LuckyLukester22/status/900217614512914433

Big corporations are known for being two-faced — presenting a nurturing, maternal face to the outside world while ruthlessly pursuing profit on the inside.

But few have been charged with as much of a divergence between its outside and inside views as Exxon Mobil, which has been accused of downplaying publicly for decades what its own scientists were saying internally about climate change — that it posed a material threat to the company’s future.

A new study by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, experts in the history of science at Harvard, presents fresh evidence of how great the gap was. The study matches hundreds of Exxon Mobil’s internal reports and peer-reviewed research papers with its advertising — especially paid “advertorials” the company placed in the op-ed section of the New York Times from 1972 through 2001. The authors’ conclusion is that Exxon Mobil systematically “misled non-scientific audiences about climate science.”

Supran and Oreskes say their work, which was published late Tuesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, is the first empirical comparison of Exxon Mobil’s internal and peer-reviewed research with its public statements on climate change. Their goal was to address the company position that earlier investigations were based on “cherry-picked” documents.

“We looked at the whole cherry tree,” Supran says, “and the evidence speaks for itself.”

The study may be especially timely now, because a coalition of state attorneys general and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether the company lied to the public and investors about what it knew about the dangers of climate change. In 2015, New York Atty. Gen. Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed company research on the causes and impact of climate change dating back to 1977, and financial disclosures, public statements and internal reports on the topic dating back to 2005. The company has moved to quash the subpoena.

The study also involves research and public statements issued by the company while Rex Tillerson, the current secretary of state, was a senior executive. Tillerson isn’t mentioned in the paper, but he became a production general manager in 1999, president and a director in 2004, and chairman and chief executive in 2006.

The new study fleshes out previous reporting on the divergence between what Exxon Mobil knew about climate change and the picture it presented for public consumption. The Times, working with the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, reported in 2015 that the company had invested heavily in research into how climate change could affect a variety of operations in the Arctic, with company scientists using widely accepted climate models that its executives publicly dismissed as unreliable.

At the company’s annual meeting in 1999, The Times reported, then-CEO Lee Raymond denigrated the models underlying the company’s own research as projections “based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, on sheer speculation.”

In 2005, science writer Chris Mooney documented the company’s years of financial support of individuals and groups fighting policies and government actions to address global warming, typically by instilling doubt about climate science. InsideClimate News in 2015 laid out the discrepancies between Exxon Mobil’s “cutting-edge climate research” and its public stance of climate change denial. Oreskes, co-author of the book “Merchants of Doubt” about the tobacco industry’s decades-long effort to undermine research on smoking’s health effects, that same year showed the similarities between that effort and Exxon Mobil’s campaign of “disinformation, denial and delay.”

“It’s pretty clear that their strategy was the same as tobacco’s,” Oreskes told me this week. “Delay looked to them as a smart business choice, and it may have been.”

The 187 documents examined by Supran and Oreskes included 72 peer-reviewed papers and 36 “advertorials” on the topic. Although the authors largely treat Exxon Mobil as a single company, it’s the product of a 1999 merger between the two oil giants; in most of the period covered by the advertorials, they were placed by Mobil prior to the merger. Tillerson came up through the Exxon ranks prior to the merger.

They ranked each one according to whether its thrust was to acknowledge human activities as a cause of global warming, cast doubt on that conclusion, or reflected both viewpoints. They found that the company’s serious research and internal reporting acknowledged human-caused global warming — as well it would, since corporate decision-making depended on the most accurate possible assessment of the future.

On August 24 2017 11:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Clarify your last sentence please?

If the DoD has the directive and Mattis has given the okay, then it'll go through. But as I've said before, don't believe this until a General confirms this.

On August 24 2017 11:24 Slaughter wrote:
Why is he so obsessed with going after trans people in the military? Like why is this even something he cares about.

How can anyone in our military take our commander in chief seriously or believe he will have their back.

On August 24 2017 11:24 Slaughter wrote:
Why is he so obsessed with going after trans people in the military? Like why is this even something he cares about.

How can anyone in our military take our commander in chief seriously or believe he will have their back.