|
Marlows posted:To all those arzying: How did you make it through 2012, 2004, or 2000? 2000, I waited to freak out until election night, which was long. WampaLord posted:87% to 81% = dropping like a rock? Blorange posted:Just watch PEC's map, commence arzying if this drops below a solid 270+ for Hillary.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:2012 seemed like it had less poll movement than 2016 has so far. Obama was +0.7 on RCP in 2012. Clinton is up +5.2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
I think the Senate is a legitimate huge concern since the longer the Republicans don't confirm a Justice and the system doesn't totally crash, the more eight becomes the new normal. Of course until they get a President then we'll need to get back to nine as quickly as possible or the Constitution will burst into flame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
botany posted:The sheriff in the case testified otherwise. Wasn't the sherrif out there with them semi-supporting what they were doing anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:2012 seemed like it had less poll movement than 2016 has so far. Since the primaries were decided, Trump has lead the RCP average once: post-RNC. He got close in september but never could quite get above her except for one or two non-tracking polls (  ) and LA Times ( )e: honestly, I expect the final RCP average to land between 4 and 6 points, baring anything major dropping. Rumors abound that something /may/, but ultimately, we'll see. iospace fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Marlows posted:To all those arzying: How did you make it through 2012, 2004, or 2000? 2000 I was a naive fresh eyed college student who said "turd sandwich and giant douche are both the same! I'm voting Nader!" This Is the last time I ever thought like this. Not only were the next 4 years eye opening, the following 4 weeks after the election were eye opening enough to say never again to non-viable third parties. If I wasn't in a solid red state at the time (Colorado), I would've felt a lot worse. 2004 I actually thought might be pretty good. Kerry won all three debates and was running neck and neck in the polls. Then he got swift-boated and wolved and early in east coast closures I knew it was over. 2012 looked bad at times but especially after the Ben Ghazi presser and the 47% statements, Romney was sunk by close to mid-October. There was still some arzy-ing but nowhere near the previous levels. As has been said before, you always want a little bit of Arzy. If you don't, you have complacency and slip, you don't push as hard in GOTV, you don't impress on people how important it is to vote, you just sit back a lot more. Even when you know you're gonna win, always use the fear of losing to drive you across the finish line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
botany posted:That depends, are we talking about the guy with the car or Bundy with the cameras? The latter I really don't think was theft, and I can't say much about the former because all the coverage seems to focus on the Bundys rather than Medenbach. I'd have to know more about the specific cicrumstances, such as whether the Truck was actually removed from the refuge, how often, how it was used, and so on. Just to clear things up, I got some of the occupier's charges mixed up. The main property theft charges were: Medenbach - stole a truck, found not guilty (!) Bundy - stole cameras, hung jury The charges aren't hard to understand and the evidence was clear. I'd argue you do not in fact need to know more about the "specific circumstances" regarding the truck, it was obviously theft given the basic facts of the case. I don't know what you're arguing here, it seems like you're saying the not guilty verdicts were appropriate given the evidence or at the very least the jury wasn't nullifying? But you don't actually know about the details of the case? This isn't very convincing. And Bundy totally stole those cameras, but if we can't even agree that stealing a truck is illegal it's pointless to argue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Marlows posted:To all those arzying: How did you make it through 2012, 2004, or 2000? I think part of it stems from how horrific of a person Trump is. It's not so much "HOW COULD OUR GUY POTENTIALLY LOSE" as "HOW COULD SOMEONE THIS VILE POTENTIALLY WIN?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/deray/status/791999925307539457 I cannot imagine a worse timeline than this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
psutify posted:https://twitter.com/deray/status/791999925307539457 Well considering most of them ended in nuclear hellfire, this is not that bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
I know people say this a lot about people but he does not look like a human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Wasn't the sherrif out there with them semi-supporting what they were doing anyway? Nocturtle posted:Just to clear things up, I got some of the occupier's charges mixed up. The main property theft charges were: Okay, what are the basic facts then? I literally do not know what they used the truck for, where they took it, what they did with it, basically anything specific I simply don't know. I know they used one of the diggers on the site to dig trenches, but I have no idea what they used the truck for. If I'm simply missing information, feel free to link stuff, I've googled and I can't find anything. edit: As far as I'm aware, Bundy disabled the cameras, but never took them off site and there's no evidence that he intended to keep them. That's not theft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Wasn't the sherrif out there with them semi-supporting what they were doing anyway? No, not at all. The Sheriff was doing his best to keep the whole thing from exploding, and those idiots kept talking about how they needed to kill him. (well, they didn't say it directly) There was a sheriff a county over that was supportive - they were heading to that area when they were captured. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
iospace posted:I think part of it stems from how horrific of a person Trump is. It's not so much "HOW COULD OUR GUY POTENTIALLY LOSE" as "HOW COULD SOMEONE THIS VILE POTENTIALLY WIN?" Yeah I think a lot of people are suddenly coming to terms with just how horrible a lot of their family and neighbors are that they are willing to overlook at best an obviously unqualified candidate and at worst someone that should be in jail for multiple reasons while promoting a white nationalist agenda with no sugar coating. Seeing that one girl crying in the bathroom because Trump has brought his sexual abuse into the public eye just for a large amount of people to shrug it off like it doesn't matter was heart wrenching.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Even if Trump loses by whatever margin you think will satisfy you you will just be back in six months worrying that the problem is the candidate, not the message!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:2012 seemed like it had less poll movement than 2016 has so far. This is totally wrong. I'm trying to find that PEC chart that's been posted before that shows that this is the most stable election in terms of outcome ever, but I'm having difficulties with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Are there any decent sources that detail what was presented as evidence during the trial?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I think a lot of people are suddenly coming to terms with just how horrible a lot of their family and neighbors are that they are willing to overlook at best an obviously unqualified candidate and at worst someone that should be in jail for multiple reasons while promoting a white nationalist agenda with no sugar coating. Seeing that one girl crying in the bathroom because Trump has brought his sexual abuse into the public eye just for a large amount of people to shrug it off like it doesn't matter was heart wrenching. What sucks the most is seeing men with daughters do this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is totally wrong. I'm trying to find that PEC chart that's been posted before that shows that this is the most stable election in terms of outcome ever, but I'm having difficulties with it. I think it was this one. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/09/29/the-incredibly-stable-2016-campaign/ UFOTofuTacoCat posted:What sucks the most is seeing men with daughters do this. Yeah it puts a lot of the "I'd kill any MAN that used a bathroom with my daughter in it!!!" in regards to transgender bathroom rights then saying that Trump and the poo poo he does (one of which was literally entering the women's dressing room) is probably true but hey it's not a big deal into perspective. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
beejay posted:I know people say this a lot about people but he does not look like a human. WampaLord posted:This is totally wrong. I'm trying to find that PEC chart that's been posted before that shows that this is the most stable election in terms of outcome ever, but I'm having difficulties with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Oh for fucks sake the leaders Y'all Queda, the bundys, got acquitted. Welp I'm now convinced jury nullificiation is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
I can't wait for 2020, when Republicans, high off their success in the 2018 midterms and 4 years of "we only lost because Trump is so awful, but our message is good" lose again because they're still the party of white nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Oh for fucks sake the leaders Y'all Queda, the bundys, got acquitted. Welp I'm now convinced jury nullificiation is a bad thing. Really, just now? All white juries acquitting people for lynchings wasn't enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I can't wait for 2020, when Republicans, high off their success in the 2018 midterms and 4 years of "we only lost because Trump is so awful, but our message is good" lose again because they're still the party of white nationalism. If I had to bet I would think they will at least try to reign in the primaries somewhat so they don't just get steamrolled by someone like Trump again. The difficulty will be doing it will not pissing off the base but I think they will vote Republican regardless of how they are treated. Their actual policies will of course remain unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...b69b640f54c6be/
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Probably good advice, but I don't know how much I trust them compared to 538 yet. They were more accurate in 2012 (not that that means terribly much), and the PEC model is publicly available.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
psutify posted:https://twitter.com/deray/status/791999925307539457 Duke and Trump look eerily similar. What's up with strange skin and racism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:They were more accurate in 2012 (not that that means terribly much), and the PEC model is publicly available. Also, is all of it public? From the description, it sounded like some parts of the analytic probability calculation are patented.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Oh for fucks sake the leaders Y'all Queda, the bundys, got acquitted. Welp I'm now convinced jury nullificiation is a bad thing. I'm going to guess the acquittal was due to the government's absurd usage of confidential informants. Juries hate government fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You see on the news that there's guys with guns at your job, from a group with a history of hating SA Forums Posters whose usernames begin with T. Your boss calls, and since he's a goon too, he knows what's up and tells you you can work from home. I'm not really serious, but the episode o Law and Order writes itself. The guys who played Jay Landsman, who is playing the defense attorney: So Mr. Federal Employee, according to your testimony, you were threatened by my client. Is that right? Federal Employee: Yes, that's right. Defense: Wheels over TV car and pushes VHS tape into VCR I would like for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to witness exhibit C. Pushes play on VCR Camera pans to jury. They watch enthralled. Defense: As you can clearly see, my client threatened to shoot anyone who made an attempt to remove him and his alleged air quote gesture "co-conspirators" from the premises. Do you agree with that Mr. Federal Employee? Federal Employee: I do. Like I said, he threat... Defense: Interrupting At what time did you personally attempt to remove my client from the facilities? Federal Employee: I was instructed to stay home during the stand off. Defense: So, if I'm hearing correctly, you never attempted to remove my client from the facilities. Federal Employee: They all had guns. We were told... Defense: Interrupting If my client only threatened to shoot those who tried to remove them, and you, by your own admission never did, then how is it that you were threatened by my client? Courtroom erupts. Judge: Bangs gavel Order! Order! Defense: Looks to jury Nothing further, your Honor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
So uh what the gently caress happened with the Bundy trial? Did the prosecution get too greedy with what they were charging them with or something? We have like complete video documentation of what these guys were doing thanks to one of them livestreaming them bumming around in the offices with guns and acting like tough guys for a couple of weeks what's the issue here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
botany posted:Okay, what are the basic facts then? I literally do not know what they used the truck for, where they took it, what they did with it, basically anything specific I simply don't know. I know they used one of the diggers on the site to dig trenches, but I have no idea what they used the truck for. If I'm simply missing information, feel free to link stuff, I've googled and I can't find anything. I'm still not clear what you're arguing, but apparently you're doing it from total ignorance? Fine. Description of Medenbach's theft, indictment Copy of actual federal indictment, check count 4 Description of Medenbach's pathetic defense From Medenbach's defense: quote:In court Friday, Medenbach explained: "The pickup truck was going to be brought right back. I drove to Burns to get groceries.'' You don't actually need to know what they used the truck for, that's completely irrelevant to whether it was theft aside from a few exceptional circumstances. Just to be clear it was theft, getting groceries isn't reason enough to take someone else's car without their permission. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this. I'd actually assumed this was the charge the jury was divided on, given how straightforward it was and the incompetent defense. I don't understand people here who've suggested that jurors have a tough job and the instruction process is too complex. People get convicted for stealing cars every day, it's not some huge burgen. The fact they unanimously voted not guilty on this charge is even worse than I thought. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:If I had to bet I would think they will at least try to reign in the primaries somewhat so they don't just get steamrolled by someone like Trump again. The difficulty will be doing it will not pissing off the base but I think they will vote Republican regardless of how they are treated. Their actual policies will of course remain unchanged. There is no situation in which Team Rocket makes changes to their nominating process that doesn't totally blow up in their faces somehow. White Nationalists hold a plurality among their electorate and the other party doesn't want them. Absent explicit rejection of their ideology and a willingness to let them leave like the Democrats in the 60s, the GOP is stuck with them and will nominate who they want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Awww poor little Mark Kirk knows he's going to lose and is cranky about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
God drat that's a serious combover. I wonder what his hair looks like when he wakes up in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Harrow posted:God drat that's a serious combover. Still not convinced it isn't a wig that's been surgically attached to his scalp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Oh for fucks sake the leaders Y'all Queda, the bundys, got acquitted. Welp I'm now convinced jury nullificiation is a bad thing. Well there's a small shimmer of hope that maybe the Bundy crew will have their hearts warmed by the mercy they've been shown by the court system and come away thinking that maybe they live in a free & fair society after all 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
i mean yes? that's basically exactly what it is. except its kinda hair-velcro'd to his head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
The idea that the Government could use confidential informants and base that as their main prosecuton strategy and never allow the defense to know who they are etc.. is loving terrifying. Bundy's deserved to be found not guilty for that reason alone if that is true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Crossposting this to Dadchat: I am currently looking for beginner level books, podcasts, or movies for understanding liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, neoliberalism, neoconservativism, socialism, and fascism. A good book that explains the differences between them, the under lying philosophy of each, and the strengths and weakness of the ideologues. I am also looking for some beginner level books, podcasts, or movies that explain the differences between the major US parties, the factions with in them, and outlines of the policies they push. Anything would be of help. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 15:33
|
|
