Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
If you roll a 1 then in four years you get a re-roll. If that one is also a 1 then you will never ever get another roll. And that second roll will be with a die supplied by Trump Casinos.El Guapo wrote:Do we have a re-roll available? That would be great.
I found this funnier than I probably should have.Alefroth wrote:On who?Rip wrote: Trump is coming.
YellowKing wrote:The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.
The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.
I'm sorry. Should it be whom?El Guapo wrote:I found this funnier than I probably should have.Alefroth wrote:On who?Rip wrote: Trump is coming.
Nah, it should be what.Alefroth wrote:I'm sorry. Should it be whom?El Guapo wrote:I found this funnier than I probably should have.Alefroth wrote:On who?Rip wrote: Trump is coming.
That was pretty funny.El Guapo wrote:Black Jeopardy from this Saturday's SNL is great (playing off including Tom Hanks as a Trump voter).
OK, seriously. Those hands have been altered - RIGHT?Max Peck wrote:Nah, it should be what.Alefroth wrote:I'm sorry. Should it be whom?El Guapo wrote:I found this funnier than I probably should have.Alefroth wrote:On who?Rip wrote: Trump is coming.
As I wrote last week, Hillary Clinton is probably going to become the next president. But there’s an awful lot of room to debate what “probably” means.
FiveThirtyEight’s polls-only model puts Clinton’s chances at 85 percent, while our polls-plus model has her at 83 percent. Those odds have been pretty steady over the past week or two, although if you squint you can see the race tightening just the slightest bit, with Clinton’s popular vote lead at 6.2 percentage points as compared to 7.1 points a week earlier. Still, she wouldn’t seem to have a lot to complain about.
Other statistical models are yet more confident in Clinton, however, variously putting her chances at 92 percent to 99 percent. Maybe that doesn’t seem like a big difference, since people (wrongly) tend to perceive odds above 80 percent as sure things. But flip those numbers around, and instead of Clinton’s chances, consider Donald Trump’s. The New York Times’s Upshot model gives Trump an 8 percent chance of winning the election. Our models say a Trump presidency is about twice a likely as The Upshot does, putting his chances at 15 percent (polls-only) and 17 percent (polls-plus). And our models think Trump is about four times as likely to win the presidency as the Huffington Post Pollster model, which puts his chances at 4 percent.
So let me explain why our forecast is a bit more conservative than some of the others you might be seeing — and why you shouldn’t give up if you’re a Trump supporter, or assume you have it in the bag if you’re voting for Clinton. We’ve touched on each of these points before, but it’s nice to have them in one place. I’ll also show you what probability our model would give to Trump and Clinton if we changed some of these assumptions.
Assumption No. 1: The high number of undecided and third-party voters indicates greater uncertainty.
[...]
Assumption No. 2: The FiveThirtyEight model is calibrated based on general elections since 1972.
[...]
Assumption No. 3: The FiveThirtyEight model uses a t-distribution with “fat tails,” which gives a greater likelihood of rare events.
[...]
Assumption No. 4: State outcomes are highly correlated with one another, so polling errors in one state are likely to be replicated in other, similar states.
[...]
As we say frequently, the greater uncertainty in the FiveThirtyEight forecast cuts both ways. So while we show a greater likelihood of a Trump win than most other models, we’d also assign a greater possibility to a Clinton landslide, in which she wins the election by double digits. But while the campaign is almost over, the suspense isn’t quite done.
It seems to involve a PAC rather than the campaign itself, but that doesn't mean it might not knock a few undecideds off the fence if it gets coverage.Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is facing a fundraising scandal after a Telegraph investigation exposed how key supporters were prepared to accept illicit donations from foreign backers.
Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.
In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.
Last week Eric Beach, the PAC’s co-chairman, confirmed to the reporters at an event in Las Vegas that their client's support would be "remembered" if Mr Trump became president.
Those appeared to be glitchy email lists rather than deliberate malfeasance. This seems to be a case where the co-chairman of the PAC was explicitly soliciting a large foreign donation in return for future favours if Trump wins.Defiant wrote:Hasn't the Trump campaign already, several times, sought donations from foreign non-citizens? For example
It's not just Trump. All of the "idiot right" websites that show up on my friend's Facebook feeds are saying this, and of course they are sharing them as evidence of rigging the polls.Holman wrote:Here's a lovely example of how Trumpian ignorance directly threatens Democracy.
tl;dr:
Trump paints a stark picture of what he calls Democratic poll manipulation based on what an allied Twitter warrior found in a WikiLeaks Podesta dump email.
The problem? The email talks about "oversampling," which the Twitter warrior thinks means misrepresenting results. But in fact oversampling is a method used in a party's internal polling (which is what the email is about) to gather more data about a specific group, essentially of way of conducting a poll within a poll.
Trump took this tweet and (presumably without consulting anyone who knows polling) ran straight to his adoring legions, offering it as "proof" that the public polls are skewed in order to depress Republican hopes and turnout. No doubt it is already gospel on their side, and no clarification of definitions will unsay it.
You see that every time Ben Carson goes on TV. At heart, he's a decent man (if oftentimes ignorant or confused about things outside of his specialty), but watching him contort while trying to defend Trump is very sad.Default wrote:What is amusing is the mental gymnastics that people will go to explaining why they will vote for someone who is manifestly poison to everything they believe in.
It's not shorthand, it's the famous executive wand, as depicted here:raydude wrote:Obama could essentially "wave a magic wand" (my shorthand for his belief in the President's powers)
Hah. Wife persuaded me to join NextDoor so I get a steady trickle of emails in my junk account, which I delete once a week or so. It has some value when you're looking for contractor recommendations or a lost pet. Haven't seen any discussions of anything substantive, political or otherwise, and that's fine with me. New Englanders tend to MYOB.Isgrimnur wrote:Facebook makes you hate your friends and family. NextDoor makes you hate your neighbors. I'm glad I opted out of the daily digest e-mails. And doubly glad the only HOA for my neighborhood is Voluntary. Otherwise, the bitching about my yard would be nonstop.
He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.raydude wrote:One of my cousin's on Facebook got riled up over the news story about the Pentagon wanting 10,000 soldiers to pay back enlistment bonuses that they apparently didn't qualify for at the time they signed up 10 years ago. He's pointing to it as evidence that Obama (and by extension Democrats) is a failure and so he's going to vote for Trump.
When I pointed out that it's the Pentagon's fault, not the President's, he brought up how Obama could essentially "wave a magic wand" (my shorthand for his belief in the President's powers) and give the Iranians 400 million dollars but apparently can't do the same for these veterans.
That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
Ha ha...one of his slaves photo bombed him.Defiant wrote:It's not shorthand, it's the famous executive wand, as depicted here:raydude wrote:Obama could essentially "wave a magic wand" (my shorthand for his belief in the President's powers)
It allows him to rush production at half cost.
It was $1.7B and semantics aside either the money was going to be paid or the hostages would not have been released, no matter what hoops one jumps to in order to try and separate the two.hepcat wrote:That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... t-n2214764The release of Americans, which included The Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian who was being held on bogus espionage charges, occurred on January 16-17 of this year. When news of the $400 million (now $1.7 billion) hit the wires, the Obama White House tried to shrug it off, saying that this payment had already been announced, and that the United States doesn’t pay ransom for hostages. That narrative lasted all of two weeks before more information was released on the exchange. The State Department added that it was a coincidence, not a ransom. Then, the coincidence, non-ransom became a leverage payment. Finally, State admitted that the money was handed only after the release of our citizens, which is the textbook definition of ransom. Prior to the exchange, the Department of Justice warned State that Iran would view this transfer as a ransom payment, which they have.
Now, with the revelations that we paid Iran $1.7 billion, and not the $400 million as originally reported, no wonder why the Obama administration initially blocked congressional inquires into our...ransom payment.
It's only an issue of simply semantics to those with an agenda. Like the conservative sites you frequently link to (or the white supremacy sites, which you've done on occasion). My link was to Fortune.com. Not exactly a left leaning institution.Rip wrote:It was $1.7B and semantics asidehepcat wrote:That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
It was a transfer of wealth required before the hostages would be released. In my book that is a ransom.hepcat wrote:It's only an issue of simply semantics to those with an agenda. Like the conservative sites you frequently link to (or the white supremacy sites, which you've done on occasion). My link was to Fortune.com. Not exactly a left leaning institution.Rip wrote:It was $1.7B and semantics asidehepcat wrote:That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
Let's sum this up, shall we?
It wasn't a ransom. Period.
Benghazi wasn't a government conspiracy, nor was it the fault of one individual. Period.
There is no evidence of wide spread voter fraud. Period
Peddle your conspiracy theories on sites where they might believe you.
...like Townhall.com.
You're missing the point. We were going to have to pay the $1.7 billion dollars anyway as a settlement of outstanding claims. That was going to happen, either now or later. So we paid Iran what we legally owed them - and got those hostage out as a bonus.Rip wrote:It was a transfer of wealth required before the hostages would be released. In my book that is a ransom.
I said "Period".Rip wrote:
It was a transfer of wealth required before the hostages would be released. In my book that is a ransom.
I know...I know.El Guapo wrote:Forget it, hepcat - it's Riptown.
Same here. I regret being so persuadable.Kraken wrote:Hah. Wife persuaded me to join NextDoor so I get a steady trickle of emails in my junk account, which I delete once a week or so. It has some value when you're looking for contractor recommendations or a lost pet. Haven't seen any discussions of anything substantive, political or otherwise, and that's fine with me. New Englanders tend to MYOB.Isgrimnur wrote:Facebook makes you hate your friends and family. NextDoor makes you hate your neighbors. I'm glad I opted out of the daily digest e-mails. And doubly glad the only HOA for my neighborhood is Voluntary. Otherwise, the bitching about my yard would be nonstop.
You forget that Rip uses the Negan book of diplomacy. Give me your shit or I kill you.hepcat wrote:I said "Period".Rip wrote:
It was a transfer of wealth required before the hostages would be released. In my book that is a ransom.
To be fair, this is a Donald Trump thread. Using "Period" to indicate the end of a discussion might not be the first definition of that word that people think of.hepcat wrote: I said "Period".
