Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.
How do people fall for this shit? Probably Russian propaganda.
I mean, literally, the odds of Bernie being the nominee are about 1 in 5 right now, per 538's model. Betting markets tell roughly the same story - if you want to translate contract prices into probabilities it gets a little complex, because properly speaking an efficient market should have total contract prices for a dollar payoff per contract summing up to $1.00, while even before you get into the myriad of longshot candidates at $0.01 each you're up to $1.15, but if we just assume all of the penny contracts themselves have a total likelihood equal to a penny on the dollar then $0.29/$1.16 implies a probability of exactly 1 in 4. That's not nothing - that's actually roughly what 538's estimate of Trump winning was in 2016 as it happens. But that's also consistent with the view that Sanders has a 3-in-4 chance of NOT winning, which is more where I was coming from.
And, full disclosure, I'm not even sure I'm a Biden voter at this point. I'd say he's the most likely nominee at this point, but again using current predictit market contract prices, 0.42/1.16 gives him about a 36% shot, or a little better than 1-in-3. Better than Sanders, but also a 64% chance of his also not being the nominee.
Long story short, I don't think it's a stretch to say, or displays any bias, to say that it's not especially likely for Sanders to be the nominee. That's a simple result of probability.
What they've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in their rambling, incoherent response were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award them no points, and may God have mercy on their soul.
Well, where do you get your proof that it's not true?
The government? No one trusts them
The MSM? All fake news
Normal people who've actually looked into it and can't find any sources to back it up? Mere sheeple brainwashed by one or both of the above.
I honestly don't think that most folks who share that kind of stuff actually believe it. It's just done as some roundabout way to "own the liberals" or to start arguments "for the lulz".
The few that actually do believe it are already invested in equally crazy conspiracy nonsense. So it's just another stream of thought bouncing around the noggin of someone who believes the Illuminati killed JFK because he faked the moon landing with help from aliens to hide the fact that the Earth is flat and has no bottom to the oceans.
To a point. What i can say is that a good portion of my family doesn't question the moon landing, because 'USA! USA! USA'. They also don't think the earth is flat, because every picture of the globe they see has the USA front-and-center and they are OK with that. They don't question things they've been taught for decades. Which is also why they are all still "christian" even though there are no signs that they practice besides sharing God's Love memes and poems on facebook, and wear a cross necklace. They cling to anything that reinforces their believe that other races, whether they are immigrants or not (and the countries they come from), are beneath them and the nation is weaker because of it.
No one likes HRC, and she's a career politician. That's what makes the statement painfully ironic. No one is buying her books. Also, not that this us scientific in the least, especially in terms of sampling, but skip to 8:34
I agree that politicians don't like Bernie Sanders. I don't like Bernie Sanders, but most young Americans love Bernie Sanders. Most old hippies love Bernie Sanders. A lot of non-young non-hippies like him. But he will not be the nominee, because he's not a proper Democrat. On the other hand, no one likes Joe Biden right now. His popularity is the lowest ever and it'll likely continue going lower throughout the year. He will tick most of the same boxes of what people didn't like about HRC, and he will lose the electoral vote to Trump, but win the pop vote. Then we will have a super unpopular president Trump with nothing to fear- no re-election, no impeachment, no stopping him. And he will dismantle government bureaucracies like the EPA and the SEC, because toxins and white collar crimes are all a myth, and beef up ICE and Space Farce, because the only thing scarier than aliens are illegal aliens taking away our jobs! [/sardonicism]
This, but also that many Trump supporters, evangelicals included, basically believe that an outright lie, otherwise known as bearing false witness (but hey, it's not like there's a commandment against that kind of thing), made in service of what they perceive as being the greater good is not only acceptable, but righteous.
Thank god he gave us permission to copy and paste it though.
Sooooo that was a shit show yesterday. And Roberts didn't seem pleased with Trump's defense. Too bad this will all end along party lines.
Our country is fucked. The cult is winning.
Trump: we will call witnesses once this moves to the senate.
Also Trump: no witnesses in the senate trial. Let's also limit evidence.
Cult members: everything is fine
Trumps atty: no one in the house trial had any direct contact with trump bc trump blocked them all from appearing
Two things here - I don't see anything ironic with Clinton calling Sanders a "career politician" at all, considering as an establishment Democratic candidate and former Secretary of State the fact she was an "insider" candidate was never really at all in question - you yourself used the insider/outsider divide to describe issues with her campaign a few pages back. What makes it ironic is that Sanders, the "outsider" candidate, actually has a shorter non-politcal resume than Clinton, the "insider" career one, by a fairly wide margin. What she's getting at is the difference in perception and how in Sanders's case his stance as being somehow different from career politicians doesn't hold water.
Second... I - again - think you're still confusing "popularity" with voting, and candidate favorability is only a small part of the picture here. As it happens, Sanders' favorability has been falling, post flareup with Warren, and at least as of this morning he and Biden are neck and neck at the top of the heap for the Democratic nomination, with 73% of primary voters having a favorable opinion of Sanders (20% unfavorable, net +53) vs 72% of primary voters having a favorable opinion of Biden (21% unfavorable, net +51). So, favorability is kind of an iffy statistic to hang your hat on to begin with... but it's also not one that really tells a favorable story for Sanders, or at least it certainly doesn't tell the story you think it does.
And, per my last post in this thread, Biden winning is hardly a foregone conclusion, and also not an especially likely outcome right now. He's the favorite, sure, but the favorite in a tight race, and it's still more likely than not that someone other than Biden is our nominee.
Didn't watch it live, so the color on Roberts is interesting. That's potentially important, since in a 50-50 split, it does appear that Roberts would be the tiebreaking vote.
Also, a lot's being made of the fact that McConnell had to backtrack for spplitting the alloted timing over three days rather than two - the two conflicting explanations are that it's a reminder the rules ARE in play and McConnell can't just force through whatever he wants... But, also that allegedly the White House may have had advance warning of the change, and it's possible it may have been a tactical play on his part, to give moderates in his caucus cover that they did push back for a fair trial, and he staked his position at two days knowing full well he'd have too give and allow 3.
We know too that both Romney and Collins are in favor of ultimately allowing witnesses after the first three days of the trial, when the second vote comes up (Romney had previously indicated he'd vote down including them in the rules, but would vote for witnesses with firsthand knowledge in the proceedings, so nothing there was a surprise). There's also quiet speculation that this is a tactical move on Collins' part, that she knows that there won't be four votes to allow witnesses so she can safely take this position and look independent knowing it won't change the outcome. That's worth keeping an eye on too, especially if all 47 democrats vote for witnesses and Romney and Collins are joined by Murkowski or Lamar Alexander or someone, and we get a 50-50 split that then goes to Roberts. Though, if he voted in favor, it's still possible someone could be pressured into flipping their vote andf a majority vote could overrule him.
There's little real doubt about the outcome... But there's a surprising amount of uncertainty about how exactly this is going to play out, and I don't think it's at all a sure thing that we don't get a few subpoenas for the trial, with Bolton at least being a sure thing to actually show, though Mulvaney, Giuliani, and Pompeo are unknowns.
At the gym today i looked over at one of the TVs and it was showing WaPo reporting Democrats nuking a trade for Hunter testimony in exchange for Bolton. If true, I say just do it.
And yeah, Trump isn't getting removed. I think this is more about November at this point.
Of course they nuked that deal. Because protecting Hunter Biden is more important than skewering Trump.
This just indicates to me that Biden is the DNC choice and we're going to get railroaded again.
We're having a parallel conversation here, with another board...
...but not for nothing, if Trump is being impeached for improperly using presidential power to try to get the Ukrainian PM to re-open an investigation into Burisma and publicly linking Hunter Biden to that investigation, arguably having Hunter Biden testify on the Senate floor denying allegations that he was involved in the tax fraud Burisma was being investigated in is a far, far bigger prize for Trump than an Ukrainian announcement.
If push came to shove I'd probably make that trade, but look at this from the GOP's perspective - this isn't not buying the cow because you can get the milk for free, this is someone giving you the milk, AND tossing in the cow.
Anyway, the real negotiations will be after the three days where both sides pitch their cases, when they negotiate what next steps will be. There are enough Republican senators wavering that some serious back-and-forth about a witness and evidence deal will likely begin then.
I guess, tl;dr, it seems to me calling Hunter Biden as a witness is a bigger political win for Trump than even getting Ukraine to announce an investigation referencing the Bidens would have been, and that's absolutely something that we need to keep in mind as we go forward. If you're going to hand that to Trump, you'd better be damn sure you're getting a plausible shot at bombshell witness testimony in return.
also.... who would go first? hunter goes first, gives team cult a huge propaganda win. bolton steps up and claims exec privilege and doesn't say anything besides buy my book.
I mean, these are some of the details that would have to be worked out. If we agree to a witness swap and get Giuliani and Bolton in return for, oh, Hunter and Schiff, then I think you'd need some sort of assurances that Bolton and Giuliani actually testify. The former has said he will, but partly because of that some of the other insiders would be the real prize, because at this point its not entirely clear that McConnell has the votes to STOP Bolton from being subpoenaed by the Senate. The more pertinent question might be if it's better to block Hunter, or trade his testimony for Giuliani or Mulvaney's.
And, honestly, considering this is all showmanship until after the three days each side has to make their cases, blocking efforts to trade Hunter's testimony for Bolton's may very well be negotiation at this point, with the end goal finding out if they have the votes to subpoena Bolton, and THEN seeing what they can get for Hunter.