|
QuarkJets posted:Well, he'd probably wind up in Swedish prison for the rape charge. Is it really true that that this is a rape charge based on lying about using a condom, not rapey rape? That only seems one or two steps away from "women are conditioned from birth to have sex with men, therefore incapable of giving informed consent, therefore all sex is rape". Certainly a lovely thing to do, don't get me wrong. Edit: after hearing he was a rapist for years I only heard the condom thing from one unreliable source, which is why I asked. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Is it really true that that this is a rape charge based on lying about using a condom, not rapey rape? That only seems one or two steps away from "women are conditioned from birth to have sex with men, therefore incapable of giving informed consent, therefore all sex is rape". the woman agreed to have sex with him under the condition that he use a condom. he tricked her into thinking he was using a condom when he wasn't. the woman was lied to and taken advantage of. how is that not rape? because she said 'yes' at some point in the exchange? she said yes to the thing that didn't happen. her consent required something that wasn't present. therefore she didn't give consent to what actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Is it really true that that this is a rape charge based on lying about using a condom, not rapey rape? That only seems one or two steps away from "women are conditioned from birth to have sex with men, therefore incapable of giving informed consent, therefore all sex is rape".  Also it's pretty lovely to describe some forms of rape as "rapey rape" as if other forms of rape aren't still...you know, rape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
also, there were two separate charges against him
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Endorph posted:grats on being terrible, dude. Matty's a troll, not even a good one, like Amergin. Don't bother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/783264013769670656 +/- 6.1% MoE and B+ rating on 538
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Obviously PA was never going to go to the Republicans but those McGinty numbers! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Really this is a failure of language. It's like how we call used to call all sports injuries "knee injuries" and now there are like 20 different versions of that like MCL and ACL injuries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
You are partially correct in that this is only the most recent rape allegation. He's done poo poo like this before. But seriously how can you not think "agree to have sex under a condition", "partner ignores condition and goes against what you consented to" isn't rape?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Really this is a failure of language. It's like how we call used to call all sports injuries "knee injuries" and now there are like 20 different versions of that like MCL and ACL injuries. I think it might just be a failure of your brain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Going by 538's Polls+ model and assigning every state where a candidate is more than 70% ahead, Hillary has 272 Electoral Votes- and that's with Nevada, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina assigned to anyone. So basically Trump's gotta win every single swing state AND turn 1 solid Clinton state Red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:Going by 538's Polls+ model and assigning every state where a candidate is more than 70% ahead, Hillary has 272 Electoral Votes- and that's with Nevada, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina assigned to anyone. And I guess when you run the odds through excel or whatever a few ten thousand times this still happens about %30 of the time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
greatn posted:And I guess when you run the odds through excel or whatever a few ten thousand times this still happens about %30 of the time? Apparently, but keep in mind this isn't taking any of this week's shitshow for Trump into account, this is mostly just Debate + Machado stuff. No taxes, no Foundation shutdown, no China Steel, nothing of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
greatn posted:And I guess when you run the odds through excel or whatever a few ten thousand times this still happens about %30 of the time? Probably uses R
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
greatn posted:And I guess when you run the odds through excel or whatever a few ten thousand times this still happens about %30 of the time? it happens if you run the odds through excel ten thousand times and ignore the fact that people don't vote based on random chance
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Endorph posted:it happens if you run the odds through excel ten thousand times and ignore the fact that people don't vote based on random chance While Shook Nate is very shook, this is a pretty disingenuous line of attack. The "random chance" aspect is to account for sampling errors in polls, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I wasn't worried about Wikileaks before, but now I'm legitimately terrified they have something. I just want to quote this again because lmao 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
botany posted:I just want to quote this again because lmao Let's not make fun of the ill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Let's not make fun of the ill. Said Donald Trump, never.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Antti posted:Not before the election unless NYT has like some kind of extortionesque thing going on, "don't sue us or else", but there's this thing called discovery where both parties in a lawsuit can have the court demand information from the other party that's entered into evidence. Right, but say they go to court and Trump offers his tax returns as proof that the NYT was spreading false information or whatever. During a court case, isn't that information supposed to not be released? Or has Law and Order: SVU led me astray?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
More anti-arzying if you still need it: https://twitter.com/LukeBrinker/status/783274079730139136
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
smg77 posted:More anti-arzying if you still need it: Beginning of third party support dissipating due to their not being in the debates imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Headline: Assange droned on, kills any chance at being taken seriouslyNikkolasKing posted:I'm holding out hope. Just yesterday I had no idea who Julian Assange was. Maybe this was all just the most amazing and fortuitous timing. I hope this made a good impression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
I feel like we (but more importantly, a bunch of Infowars/Trump fans desperate for some Hillary dirt) just spent the last few days fretting about and trying to guess what some strange clues might lead to, only to find it was just some guy trying to sell them something. Follow the money
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
an AOL chatroom posted:I feel like we (but more importantly, a bunch of Infowars/Trump fans desperate for some Hillary dirt) just spent the last few days fretting about and trying to guess what some strange clues might lead to, only to find it was just some guy trying to sell them something. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I'm holding out hope. Just yesterday I had no idea who Julian Assange was. Maybe this was all just the most amazing and fortuitous timing. I told you, bro. I told you Assange was a weasel piece of poo poo. Also you actually have a lot to lose if a fascist movement wins a US election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
So, Assange and the trumpets basically recreated this scene at three AM? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU Edit: dammit Toy Guycot 
Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Lote posted:Headline: Assange droned on, kills any chance at being taken seriously 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I told you, bro. I told you Assange was a weasel piece of poo poo. I still don't get how we're this close to electing an incompetent fascist instigating a rise in open white supremacy and some people still see a personal dislike of Hillary Clinton as any kind of concern.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Virginia, while doing well in the big circus, is still fighting off the right-to-work constitutional amendment. Back in January, Yes on Question 1 was up 20 points; as of now, it's a dead heat. State labor Feds are doing it themselves; the AFL is mostly focused on Ohio (lol, sigh) and Florida. The more people hear about the amendment (yes, we're already RTW, so why alter the constitution?), the less they like it. Liberals are afraid a knock-on effect could lead one bad judge could declare unions unconstitutional as a result; conservatives aren't very happy about using the constitution as a political football. VA conservatives are literalists, which comes to really interesting moments like Dave Brat, Anti Fast Track Anti TPP Warrior. So Howell's bullshit isn't flying. Especially since they gave their game away with the constitutional amendment to remove the governor's voter restoration rights. Virginia is a funky old state these days. Move to Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
smg77 posted:More anti-arzying if you still need it: Hillary is higher on RCP's 4-way vs 2-way despite losing voters to Johnson and Stein because of that LA Times tracker hahaha
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
It looks like those LA Times people have firmly rooted themselves in reality. Who the hell are they even calling - it must be an incredible subsample to be ~8-9 points off the national average.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Endorph posted:it happens if you run the odds through excel ten thousand times and ignore the fact that people don't vote based on random chance The 538 model is actually trying to account for the fact that polling error isn't just due to sampling: that there's likely some amount of systemic error in the polls. For example, maybe Trump's brown shirts will prevent a substantial number of minorites from voting, or white turnout will be unusually low, or the pollsters didn't accurately account for young people moving to other states and keeping their old cell phone #. AFAICT that's the main difference between their "polls" model and the other aggregators. And even though their systemic error model can go either way with equal likelihood, it manifests as a higher likelihood of any win for Trump vs just a bigger win for Hillary: hence the higher probability of Trump winning in 538's model vs others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
lozzle posted:While Shook Nate is very shook, this is a pretty disingenuous line of attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Scooter posted:The 538 model is actually trying to account for the fact that polling error isn't just due to sampling: that there's likely some amount of systemic error in the polls. For example, maybe Trump's brown shirts will prevent a substantial number of minorites from voting, or white turnout will be unusually low, or the pollsters didn't accurately account for young people moving to other states and keeping their old cell phone #. Do pollsters not ask what state you're in and just assume from area code? Though I guess if I moved to Virginia no pollsters would be calling 334 numbers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Is it really true that that this is a rape charge based on lying about using a condom, not rapey rape? That only seems one or two steps away from "women are conditioned from birth to have sex with men, therefore incapable of giving informed consent, therefore all sex is rape". The other allegation against Assange is that in the morning he initiated sex with the victim while she was asleep. Anyway the UK extradition courts had looked at this stuff and said yup, the allegations are definitely rape under UK law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/783285289276076032 Well if you put it like that... Interesting that Bill's in OH, looks like they're not giving up on that one yet either; though why's Bernie in MN? Also  at Donald in the noted battleground state of Arizona.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
greatn posted:Do pollsters not ask what state you're in and just assume from area code? I was wondering this the other day, and found this: http://www.pewresearch.org/2016/08/01/moving-without-changing-your-cellphone-number-a-predicament-for-pollsters/ tl;dr is that they try to use other sources than just randomly sampling phone numbers by area code: they apparently have databases of billing addresses for phone numbers (though that data is incomplete), and they have access to phone numbers for registered voters (though this of course excludes people who are not yet registered).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
lol at you mother fuckers who stayed up
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:lol at you mother fuckers who stayed up I had to, I'm 3rd shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:49
|
|
