US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 66

On July 03 2017 06:04 Ghostcom wrote:
Just for clarification: I take offence to anyone doing it. The Yale group press conference was a travesty.

EDIT: Allow me to share some zlefin love:

On July 03 2017 06:04 Ghostcom wrote:
Just for clarification: I take offence to anyone doing it. The Yale group press conference was a travesty.

EDIT: Allow me to share some zlefin love:

On July 06 2017 08:11 zlefin wrote:
some of it is that; it's a well documented psychological process.
and eyeroll at danglars making the usual false claim about trump having been a better general election candidate.

On July 06 2017 08:58 zlefin wrote:
bernie also lied the whole lenght of the primary; in fact, I daresay all the candidates for all the offices lied for the entire election cycle.
also, eyeroll at GH with his usual hatedom/misrepresentation on hillary.

On July 07 2017 05:58 Sermokala wrote:
He fulfils the niche of the liberal that complains about everything that other people are doing beacuse only he should be allowed to do it. Takes a village after all and all that jazz.

On October 16 2016 02:01 zlefin wrote:

not really, I think one could establish some reasonable methodologies and do some actual analyses. There'd of course be reliability issues, as is common in social sciences, but one could make something potentially useful and well thought out.

On October 16 2016 03:09 IgnE wrote:


because orthogonality sheds no light on the hierarchy of those groupings, which itself is historically contingent. the more generalized the study the less predictive power it offers because it lacks sufficient granularity, while the more particular the study the less it tells you about the future because of its very particularity. you are always going to be looking backward because you are inherently limited by the arbitrary selection of presently relevant polling questions.

so is that a yes? you do think that if this hypothetical study of yours was conducted in 2012 it would have been able to shed some light on the shifts in the political parties in 2016?

i dont really understand what you mean saying trump is relatively well understood already. are you saying he's understood presently or that he has been understood since the primaries and that it's puzzling why very few commentators took him seriously 14 months ago?

edit: if you contend that a properly conducted hypothetical survey conducted in 2012 would have predicted the rise of trump i would assert that such a properly conducted study was impossible. my point here is that the bounds of the imaginary in 2012 positively precluded such a study from ever taking place, or at the least, if it had taken place, it would have been ignored by most everyone as fantastic because of the fact that it existed outside the common imaginary, or the "realm of possibility".

On June 15 2017 06:37 zlefin wrote:
I think the solutions to social security are known already. I'm pretty sure there's been plenty of panels and commissions which have figured out what needs to be done. The problem is it's politically painful to do so, so neither side wants to do it. and in a very real sense, the voters in aggregate do not want to do it either; and will punish anyone who tries.

The only true fix is to fix the fundamental problems that prevent the government from doing unpopular but necessary things.
but that's very hard to do.

other than that; I dunno, maybe find a politically palatable lie that both sides can agree on?

On July 07 2017 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Uhh I don't that's a feature, period. I use TL+ for the filter button and adblock. Even so, I wouldn't ignore a single poster.