|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time.
Yes. The scientific method requires rigorous testing with controlled variables to obtain reproducible results. Elections do not allow for this. They factors and variable that go into a voters decisions are not controllable.
Seriously, do you hear of anyone running "test elections'? Data and empirical research can provide insight into elections, but nothing provides a window into the voters mind.
|
On July 21 2018 02:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 01:51 mikedebo wrote:On July 21 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:
[quote]
Does it have much to do with Trump, though?
-You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations.
-Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018?
-The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.
-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6.
-The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts.
-You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders.
-It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington.
-Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire.
But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies?
I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work. Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched. Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters. zlefin has a really good book linked in their sig that mostly debunks this argument and which I wish more people would read. I am aware of Democracy for Realists(a truly terrible title, IMO), though I have not read it. I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I will say the combination of FPTP and the electoral college create an unholy gestalt of badness. Basically trivializes the votes of Republicans and Democrats in equal measure throughout heavy red and heavy blue states.
It's also weird how to me how post-2016 everyone seemed to take up arms about how we need (or don't need) the EC to give some advantage to rural communities when the college itself just favors small population states (which are somewhat predisposed to being rural, but that's a state connection not a rural community connection). States allocating EC votes proportionally would maintain this small population advantage, but it seems to never be on the table. Changing/removing the electoral college would require an entire political party to run on the platform of changing the electoral college. Amendments to the foundation of our government are the acts of entire generations, not something that we do because one bad election. That being said, I think that a shakeup of the way political power in distributed in the US is in order, if only to remind the political parties and population that the systems of power are not fixed.
I think there's some potential for gradual shift in the FPTP nature of the electoral college-after all, they've already done it for Maine. Mainly if the national-level parties continue to lose control over their state branches. Each state becomes a far more important campaign target if move away from FPTP, it's almost certainly purely the federal parties stopping them (Democrats in blue states, Republicans in red states).
Sadly, there's also the fact it's been built into the modern Democratic Party primary system already (otherwise Sanders' would have basically had 0 chance to win after the first few contests). And since ~45% of the voting public won't do anything if it's like what the Democrats do...
Killing the base 2 votes per state is basically never going to happen though.
|
On July 21 2018 02:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 01:51 mikedebo wrote:On July 21 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:
[quote]
Does it have much to do with Trump, though?
-You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations.
-Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018?
-The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.
-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6.
-The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts.
-You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders.
-It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington.
-Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire.
But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies?
I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work. Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched. Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters. zlefin has a really good book linked in their sig that mostly debunks this argument and which I wish more people would read. I am aware of Democracy for Realists(a truly terrible title, IMO), though I have not read it. I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I will say the combination of FPTP and the electoral college create an unholy gestalt of badness. Basically trivializes the votes of Republicans and Democrats in equal measure throughout heavy red and heavy blue states.
It's also weird how to me how post-2016 everyone seemed to take up arms about how we need (or don't need) the EC to give some advantage to rural communities when the college itself just favors small population states (which are somewhat predisposed to being rural, but that's a state connection not a rural community connection). States allocating EC votes proportionally would maintain this small population advantage, but it seems to never be on the table. Changing/removing the electoral college would require an entire political party to run on the platform of changing the electoral college. Amendments to the foundation of our government are the acts of entire generations, not something that we do because one bad election. That being said, I think that a shakeup of the way political power in distributed in the US is in order, if only to remind the political parties and population that the systems of power are not fixed.
An amendment requires 2/3 of of states to ratify it. Nuking the EC would shift a lot of power away from small states, so it seems extremely unlikely they'd go for it. That's beyond a political party making it their platform anyways.
|
On July 21 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. Yes. The scientific method requires rigorous testing with controlled variables to obtain reproducible results. Elections do not allow for this. They factors and variable that go into a voters decisions are not controllable. Seriously, do you hear of anyone running "test elections'? Data and empirical research can provide insight into elections, but nothing provides a window into the voters mind.
you're just wrong. the scientific method prefers that kind of testing; but it does not require it. You can still get useable statistical results with what's already available. and that's still science.
there are also plenty of windows into the voters mind: polls and surveys, and of course the actual results of the votes. they're far from perfect, but it's not a complete black box. the statement that "NOTHING" provides a window into the voters mind is false.
|
On July 21 2018 02:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. Yes. The scientific method requires rigorous testing with controlled variables to obtain reproducible results. Elections do not allow for this. They factors and variable that go into a voters decisions are not controllable. Seriously, do you hear of anyone running "test elections'? Data and empirical research can provide insight into elections, but nothing provides a window into the voters mind. you're just wrong. the scientific method prefers that kind of testing; but it does not require it. You can still get useable statistical results with what's already available. and that's still science. there are also plenty of windows into the voters mind: polls and surveys, and of course the actual results of the votes. they're far from perfect, but it's not a complete black box. the statement that "NOTHING" provides a window into the voters mind is false.
An imperfect window at best. And the more testing, polling and data that is collected to predict the voters, the more aware the voters become that they are being tested to predict the outcome of an election. That awareness has an impact on the election results itself.
|
On July 21 2018 02:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:38 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. Yes. The scientific method requires rigorous testing with controlled variables to obtain reproducible results. Elections do not allow for this. They factors and variable that go into a voters decisions are not controllable. Seriously, do you hear of anyone running "test elections'? Data and empirical research can provide insight into elections, but nothing provides a window into the voters mind. you're just wrong. the scientific method prefers that kind of testing; but it does not require it. You can still get useable statistical results with what's already available. and that's still science. there are also plenty of windows into the voters mind: polls and surveys, and of course the actual results of the votes. they're far from perfect, but it's not a complete black box. the statement that "NOTHING" provides a window into the voters mind is false. An imperfect window at best. And the more testing, polling and data that is collected to predict the voters, the more aware the voters become that they are being tested to predict the outcome of an election. That awareness has an impact on the election results itself.
so you are conceding that your earlier use of "nothing" was incorrect, yes? (it's hard to tell)
are you still contesting whether or not science, and the scientific method, can be applied to elections?
I am being pedantic; I object to statements I deem incorrect; I respond to the actual statement made, not what you somehow "meant" but didn't say. And a counterargument/dispute is directed at the statement(s) under contention.
I have no objection to the note that gathering data affects the outcome as well.
|
On July 21 2018 02:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:43 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:38 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. Yes. The scientific method requires rigorous testing with controlled variables to obtain reproducible results. Elections do not allow for this. They factors and variable that go into a voters decisions are not controllable. Seriously, do you hear of anyone running "test elections'? Data and empirical research can provide insight into elections, but nothing provides a window into the voters mind. you're just wrong. the scientific method prefers that kind of testing; but it does not require it. You can still get useable statistical results with what's already available. and that's still science. there are also plenty of windows into the voters mind: polls and surveys, and of course the actual results of the votes. they're far from perfect, but it's not a complete black box. the statement that "NOTHING" provides a window into the voters mind is false. An imperfect window at best. And the more testing, polling and data that is collected to predict the voters, the more aware the voters become that they are being tested to predict the outcome of an election. That awareness has an impact on the election results itself. so you are conceding that your earlier use of "nothing" was incorrect, yes? (it's hard to tell) are you still contesting whether or not science, and the scientific method, can be applied to elections? I am being pedantic; I object to statements I deem incorrect; I respond to the actual statement made, not what you somehow "meant" but didn't say. And a counterargument/dispute is directed at the statement(s) under contention. I have no objection to the note that gathering data affects the outcome as well.
Sure. Nothing was hyperbolic. I meant it as a short hand that there is no perfect understanding of the voter’s intent. I was incorrect in stating “nothing” and that polling provides a useful tool to gain a limited understanding of voters with some degree of accuracy.
And as I stated in my initial post, science has value. But the science of predicting elections is akin to meteorology in its accuracy and ability to predict the future.
|
Another nail in the coffin for the defense that Trump wasn't involved with the paying off people he had affairs with prior to the election. Who knows what other dirt he has on Trump. At this point it would seem Cohen is much more of a threat than even Muller is to Trump.
|
That can’t be the only tape he has of Trump. There is no way he tape that one discussion and that was it.
|
On July 21 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:48 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:43 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:38 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. Yes. The scientific method requires rigorous testing with controlled variables to obtain reproducible results. Elections do not allow for this. They factors and variable that go into a voters decisions are not controllable. Seriously, do you hear of anyone running "test elections'? Data and empirical research can provide insight into elections, but nothing provides a window into the voters mind. you're just wrong. the scientific method prefers that kind of testing; but it does not require it. You can still get useable statistical results with what's already available. and that's still science. there are also plenty of windows into the voters mind: polls and surveys, and of course the actual results of the votes. they're far from perfect, but it's not a complete black box. the statement that "NOTHING" provides a window into the voters mind is false. An imperfect window at best. And the more testing, polling and data that is collected to predict the voters, the more aware the voters become that they are being tested to predict the outcome of an election. That awareness has an impact on the election results itself. so you are conceding that your earlier use of "nothing" was incorrect, yes? (it's hard to tell) are you still contesting whether or not science, and the scientific method, can be applied to elections? I am being pedantic; I object to statements I deem incorrect; I respond to the actual statement made, not what you somehow "meant" but didn't say. And a counterargument/dispute is directed at the statement(s) under contention. I have no objection to the note that gathering data affects the outcome as well. Sure. Nothing was hyperbolic. I meant it as a short hand that there is no perfect understanding of the voter’s intent. I was incorrect in stating “nothing” and that polling provides a useful tool to gain a limited understanding of voters with some degree of accuracy. And as I stated in my initial post, science has value. But the science of predicting elections is akin to meteorology in its accuracy and ability to predict the future.
ok. then now that you've retracted the earlier points under dispute I have no remaining disputes.
I agree that like meteorology, there's considerable inaccuracy in predicting elections.
I note one can still draw a number of useful conclusions from the available data (including on how various factors affect elections in general).
|
On July 21 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
That can’t be the only tape he has of Trump. There is no way he tape that one discussion and that was it.
Apparently Cohen liked to tape non-Trump conversations generally. Even if it was the only tape with Trump on it, there is still mountains of evidence on the seized laptops, hard drives, and cell phones to bury him with.
Edit: Actually here is a tweet on the matter from someone else. There may be more. Worth noting the NYT woman was just saying this "appeared" to be the only tape. Possible she was also just saying it was the only tape on that subject. Strangely she doesn't mention that in her article.
And this:
Edit again: changed to a better tweet about Dana Bash.
|
The Nixon Speed Run continues at a blinding pace.
|
Interested to see how Trump responds. Based on that one tweet he views this as a personal slight from Cohen (even tho Cohen had no say in what the FBI took, tho maybe he is talking about recording him at all). His instincts will tell him to go on the offensive against Cohen rather than the smart move of trying to save the relationship. If he does the former, he will just further drive Cohen to cooperating with Mueller.
|
I for one look forward to the tweets.
|
On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. end of your statement. I'll just chalk this up as you misspoke earlier then.
I agree with the thrust of what you both seem to be violently agreeing on.
Plansix: I'd still recommend that you read it. I feel like it does a very good job of clarifying the problems we face globally with democracy, even if it doesn't do much to propose solutions.
|
On July 21 2018 03:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Interested to see how Trump responds. Based on that one tweet he views this as a personal slight from Cohen (even tho Cohen had no say in what the FBI took, tho maybe he is talking about recording him at all). His instincts will tell him to go on the offensive against Cohen rather than the smart move of trying to save the relationship. If he does the former, he will just further drive Cohen to cooperating with Mueller. It makes perfect sense for Cohen to record conversations with Trump considering his known tendency to lie about anything.
Remember a different law firm had the standing procedure to never talk to Trump 1-on-1 because of his tendency to lie about anything discussed.
Ofcourse Trump won't look at this rationally and will likely see it as a betrayal
|
On July 21 2018 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 03:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Interested to see how Trump responds. Based on that one tweet he views this as a personal slight from Cohen (even tho Cohen had no say in what the FBI took, tho maybe he is talking about recording him at all). His instincts will tell him to go on the offensive against Cohen rather than the smart move of trying to save the relationship. If he does the former, he will just further drive Cohen to cooperating with Mueller. It makes perfect sense for Cohen to record conversations with Trump considering his known tendency to lie about anything. Remember a different law firm had the standing procedure to never talk to Trump 1-on-1 because of his tendency to lie about anything discussed. Ofcourse Trump won't look at this rationally and will likely see it as a betrayal
In hindsight I don't know why I thought there was even a small chance Trump had Comey tapes. Serial liars don't usually tape themselves.
|
On July 21 2018 03:53 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:26 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
The notion that science cannot be applied to elections is absurd.
It simply means we have to be very cautious about what actual conclusions we reach, and be mindful of other possible explanations. It is a good thing I didn't argue that it couldn't be applied. Only that it is difficult to do and the efforts to apply science alters the result. you stated: I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. end of your statement. I'll just chalk this up as you misspoke earlier then. I agree with the thrust of what you both seem to be violently agreeing on. Plansix: I'd still recommend that you read it. I feel like it does a very good job of clarifying the problems we face globally with democracy, even if it doesn't do much to propose solutions.
I will consider putting it on the pile next to the other 20 books I plan on reading some day when I have time.
|
On July 21 2018 03:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Interested to see how Trump responds. Based on that one tweet he views this as a personal slight from Cohen (even tho Cohen had no say in what the FBI took, tho maybe he is talking about recording him at all). His instincts will tell him to go on the offensive against Cohen rather than the smart move of trying to save the relationship. If he does the former, he will just further drive Cohen to cooperating with Mueller.
Fake news, witch hunt, SAD!
Pick your poison.
Or do you actually think that he'll say anything of substance, after basically being caught with his pants down (again)?
|
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
