USPOL Nov: The vindication of Prester Jane by the narcissist Donald Trump

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Nov: The vindication of Prester Jane by the narcissist Donald Trump

«‹›284 »

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

So is privilege exponential or does privelege get Xzibited? Or is it a circle, where you cross the privilege threshold you go back to zero?

uh huh

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 09:50

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Night10194 posted:

Wait, we can win WITHOUT NC, FL, or OH?

Now you see why the GOP is pushing "PA is a swing state" so furiously.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:26

Fajita Queen: Jun 21, 2012

WeAreTheRomans posted:

how the gently caress did someone discover this connection? the eidetic porn memory some kissless neckbeards have developed is terrifying

"I recognize that bulge!"

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:26

CapnAndy: Feb 27, 2004; Some teeth long for ripping, gleaming wet from black dog gums. So you keep your eyes closed at the end. You don't want to see such a mouth up close. before the bite, before its oblivion in the goring of your soft parts, the speckled lips will curl back in a whinny of excitement. You just know it.

Night10194 posted:

Wait, we can win WITHOUT NC, FL, or OH?

Yes! And I'm still stressed out enough to keep my immune system from kicking this cold out after four days!

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:27

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

computer parts posted:

Now you see why the GOP is pushing "PA is a swing state" so furiously.

Jesus christ. Unless there's a complete and total collapse for Clinton in the next 7 days, I see why PEC has it at 99%.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:27

Mind_Taker: May 7, 2007

CapnAndy posted:

I appeal to you, wise goons, to unfuck some dissonance for me. This is my absolute nightmare map, and quite frankly it felt dishonest to turn NC red:

And yet:

One of those things has to be wrong, I can't believe both of them.

Nate's model is incredibly conservative IMO. PEC still has a Trump win at 1-3%, which IMO is a more accurate prediction given current polling. Trump winning basically requires historically inaccurate polling despite polling getting more and more accurate by the year.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:27

Colonel J: Jan 3, 2008

I know it's not a scandal that Hillary was "told some questions for the debate in advance", but I'm not sure exactly why. Usually you guys are good at explaining this stuff.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:27

Lumpy the Cook: Feb 4, 2011; Drippy-goo-yay, mother-gunker!

FactsAreUseless posted:

That's because Horn is supposedly a mainstream comics artist who draws terrible misogynist poo poo. Manara just draws erotic art. His aims are not the same at all.

Greg Horny. Haha

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:27

BarbarianElephant: Feb 12, 2015; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

The Shortest Path posted:

I mean I can sort of get the idea that stripping a bunch of entertainment from the Russian people will make them irritated and blame their government, which might eventually lead to regime change or civil war or whatever.

The idea is dumb as bricks, but I get it.

Dumber than that. The West cuts off the fun, and somehow the Russian people blame Putin, not the West? Oookay...

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:28

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Mind_Taker posted:

Nate's model is incredibly conservative IMO. PEC still has a Trump win at 1-3%, which IMO is a more accurate description given current polling. Trump winning basically requires historically inaccurate polling despite polling getting more and more accurate by the year.

Upshot has it at 88/12, which seems like a reasonable conservative estimate.

There's also been no sign of such a collapse in the state polls, at all.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:27

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

The Shortest Path posted:

I mean I can sort of get the idea that stripping a bunch of entertainment from the Russian people will make them irritated and blame their government, which might eventually lead to regime change or civil war or whatever.

The idea is dumb as bricks, but I get it.

They'll just go play Glorious ~~Belarusian~~Byelorussian World of Tanks instead or something.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:28

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Night10194 posted:

Jesus christ. Unless there's a complete and total collapse for Clinton in the next 7 days, I see why PEC has it at 99%.

loving thank you!

poo poo is seriously on lock. Obviously, everyone go vote if you haven't already, but this poo poo has been in the bag for months.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:28

Thaddius the Large: Jul 5, 2006; It's in the five-hole!

The Shortest Path posted:

I mean I can sort of get the idea that stripping a bunch of entertainment from the Russian people will make them irritated and blame their government, which might eventually lead to regime change or civil war or whatever.

The idea is dumb as bricks, but I get it.

Remember how in the Cold War there was the stereotype about Russians being desperate for Western goods, bribing cops with Levi's jeans and whatnot? Think just how much you'll get for a black market Black Ops III!

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:29

CapnAndy: Feb 27, 2004; Some teeth long for ripping, gleaming wet from black dog gums. So you keep your eyes closed at the end. You don't want to see such a mouth up close. before the bite, before its oblivion in the goring of your soft parts, the speckled lips will curl back in a whinny of excitement. You just know it.

WeAreTheRomans posted:

how the gently caress did someone discover this connection? the eidetic porn memory some kissless neckbeards have developed is terrifying

I mean, like that image shows, Land has his pet references that he uses over and over and over again, and at some point it just takes one guy going "wait I've seen that before".

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:29

Pablo Nergigante: Apr 16, 2002

Lumpy the Cook posted:

Greg Horny. Haha

Lol.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:29

Covok: May 27, 2013; Yet where is that woman now? Tell me, in what heave does she reside? None of them. Because no God bothered to listen or care. If that is what you think it means to be a God, then you and all your teachings are welcome to do as that poor women did. And vanish from these realms forever.

Remember, the scarier the model and the scarier the headlines, the more clicks you get.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:30

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Mind_Taker posted:

Nate's model is incredibly conservative IMO. PEC still has a Trump win at 1-3%, which IMO is a more accurate prediction given current polling. Trump winning basically requires historically inaccurate polling despite polling getting more and more accurate by the year.

Its important to note that Nate and Wang are working from wildly different base assumptions

Nate's model is conservative because he thinks uncertainty is still extremely high
Wang's model is more assertive because he thinks uncertainty is actually extremely low

It will be interesting to see who ends up correct.

My money is on Wang personally

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:30

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

CapnAndy posted:

I appeal to you, wise goons, to unfuck some dissonance for me. This is my absolute nightmare map, and quite frankly it felt dishonest to turn NC red:

It's worth noting that this isn't even the worst possible nightmare map; Clinton could lose Nevada in this scenario and still win. Regardless of what Nate thinks, Trump has no chance to win the presidency when the electoral map is this lopsided.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:30

WeAreTheRomans: Feb 23, 2010; by R. Guyovich

CapnAndy posted:

I mean, like that image shows, Land has his pet references that he uses over and over and over again, and at some point it just takes one guy going "wait I've seen that before".

I assume it means someone was jerking off to both the comic and the porn. Which shouldnt be surprising I guess

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:30

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

WeAreTheRomans posted:

Lol you literally want to bring down Putin by banning Russian Steam accounts

The very threat of which (Tipper's crusade against fun) had a hand in Gore losing to Bush. So laugh, but people do get angry at the thought of losing their entertainment options.

Non Serviam posted:

America has invaded more than Russia, continues to attack other countries, commit war crimes, and interfere in national politics.
Don't pretend you have a moral high ground.

And yet, I'm here criticizing my country rather often for such things, and don't get paid a salary to troll Russian media in an attempt to gently caress with their people. That and at least we haven't annexed any neighbors in the last hundred years...as opposed to, you know, one in progress.

FactsAreUseless posted:

Okay, you seem open to discussion so I'll actually respond seriously this time:

This is a really bad idea because one of the reasons Russia has such strong support for Putin is that Putin's administration controls the media. Many, many people in dictatorial countries have used sites like Twitter to communicate with the outside world - see Iran in the last decade, for instance. That's why these countries work so hard to crack down on their citizens' access to a free and open internet. For you, the internet might just be a source of entertainment. That isn't true for everyone, and people have been trying to point out that your assumption is faulty and incredibly ignorant of the outside world. Further limiting the ability of these citizens to communicate through sites not owned and controlled by their government doesn't make things any better for them. For a lot of people, it makes them much worse.

This makes sense, and I cede the point. Blocking Russian IP's would be detrimental to innocent people in a way that I didn't think of.

Now, what do we do about the Russian government's encouragement (and possible hand in) of the rash of ransomware programs and hacking?

Also, what about non-essential cultural exports, such as new movies?

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:30

Redrum and Coke: Feb 25, 2006; wAstIng 10 bUcks ON an aVaTar iS StUpid

Colonel J posted:

I know it's not a scandal that Hillary was "told some questions for the debate in advance", but I'm not sure exactly why. Usually you guys are good at explaining this stuff.

It should be a bigger scandal, but her email scandal is taking the space.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:30

DICKS FOR DINNER: Sep 6, 2008; Stand Proud

Colonel J posted:

I know it's not a scandal that Hillary was "told some questions for the debate in advance", but I'm not sure exactly why. Usually you guys are good at explaining this stuff.

It was a dumb thing for Brazile to do, but it was one question regarding the water crisis in Flint, for a town hall event held in Flint. The reason it's kind of nothing is because yeah, of course there would be a question about that.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:32

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Covok posted:

Remember, the scarier the model and the scarier the headlines, the more clicks you get.

Nate's model is not designed to create drama. Nate's model is just his best attempt to quantify how he thinks the election will go statistically.

His punditry though I think reeks of clickbait sometime.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:31

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Mind_Taker posted:

Nate's model is incredibly conservative IMO. PEC still has a Trump win at 1-3%, which IMO is a more accurate prediction given current polling. Trump winning basically requires historically inaccurate polling despite polling getting more and more accurate by the year.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/

The biggest issue I think is with their 2nd assumption, which is "how can polls be real if our eyes aren't even real"

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:32

WeAreTheRomans: Feb 23, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Its important to note that Nate and Wang are working from wildly different base assumptions

Nate's model is conservative because he thinks uncertainty is still extremely high
Wang's model is more assertive because he thinks uncertainty is actually extremely low

It will be interesting to see who ends up correct.

My money is on Wang personally

I mean, assuming HRC wins, that won't really make one model's probability more "correct" than the other. You could argue that the closer to the real EV number is more "correct" but it doesn't really work like that either.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:32

Maxwell Lord: Dec 12, 2008; I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.; Grimey Drawer

CapnAndy posted:

I appeal to you, wise goons, to unfuck some dissonance for me. This is my absolute nightmare map, and quite frankly it felt dishonest to turn NC red:

And yet:

One of those things has to be wrong, I can't believe both of them.

Most Trump victory maps I've seen have him getting Michigan and/ or Wisconsin.

On the one hand I believe WI went red in 04, but I also think that one thing which clinched 2012 for Obama was the auto bailout. Polls seem to place them both safely blue this year though.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:32

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Mel Mudkiper posted:

It will be interesting to see who ends up correct.

My money is on Wang personally

How would you be able to tell? I mean, post-factum all probabilities are either 100% or 0%.
*peeks around the corner for any Bayesians*

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:33

Redrum and Coke: Feb 25, 2006; wAstIng 10 bUcks ON an aVaTar iS StUpid

Talmonis posted:

The very threat of which (Tipper's crusade against fun) had a hand in Gore losing to Bush. So laugh, but people do get angry at the thought of losing their entertainment options.

And yet, I'm here criticizing my country rather often for such things, and don't get paid a salary to troll Russian media in an attempt to gently caress with their people. That and at least we haven't annexed any neighbors in the last hundred years...as opposed to, you know, one in progress.

This makes sense, and I cede the point. Blocking Russian IP's would be detrimental to innocent people in a way that I didn't think of.

Now, what do we do about the Russian government's encouragement (and possible hand in) of the rash of ransomware programs and hacking?

Also, what about non-essential cultural exports, such as new movies?

Did you think the US and EU intervention in Ukraine to topple their pro Russian government was going to be forgotten?

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:33

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

Talmonis posted:

That's not even close to an accurate comparison. The Iron Curtain was the closest, and even that's too draconian for what I'm talking about.

"Nope, you don't get the next Avengers movie/Taylor Swift CD/Modern Warfare game dickbags, your country keeps invading people and loving in our elections," is what I want in a nutshell.

Dogg I already read this dying comedy website through a proxy, our censors don't need any help with firewalls

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:33

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Colonel J posted:

I know it's not a scandal that Hillary was "told some questions for the debate in advance", but I'm not sure exactly why. Usually you guys are good at explaining this stuff.

She pushed publicly for a debate in Flint to address the water issue there. After this debate was announced, her campaign received an email saying the debate in Flint would indeed include a question on the water crisis.

Her debate prep documents consist of over 160 pages of material covering fifty different topics. Knowing one question out of the several that would appear in the debate is useless.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:33

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Nate's model is not designed to create drama. Nate's model is just his best attempt to quantify how he thinks the election will go statistically.

His punditry though I think reeks of clickbait sometime.

Something is hosed in Silver's model though. Uncertainty should be narrowing this late into the cycle, but his model is sticking around the 'polls from 4 months out' levels.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:34

CascadeBeta: Feb 14, 2009; by Cyrano4747

This is what I expect to see on Nov 9th. I think Ohio and Iowa are firmly Trump but who cares HRC doesn't need them.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:34

Guy Goodbody: Aug 31, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

FactsAreUseless posted:

And the offer stands: Show me a USPOL post where I wished death on a poster and I will never post in USPOL again.

Telling people to read through all the old USPOL threads is wishing death on them!

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:34

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Non Serviam posted:

Did you think the US and EU intervention in Ukraine to topple their pro Russian government was going to be forgotten?

I am not sure how to respond to this w/o getting banned, but:

Could you go piss on some other graves?

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:34

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

WeAreTheRomans posted:

I mean, assuming HRC wins, that won't really make one model's probability more "correct" than the other. You could argue that the closer to the real EV number is more "correct" but it doesn't really work like that either.

I would go by factors like Senate races and close races

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:34

Dick Trauma: Nov 30, 2007; God damn it, you've got to be kind.

Is it just me or has Trump drastically cut down on tweeting? It seems like the debate was the last source we've had of his crazy bullshit instead of the steady trickle we'd been enjoying.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:35

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Its important to note that Nate and Wang are working from wildly different base assumptions

Nate's model is conservative because he thinks uncertainty is still extremely high
Wang's model is more assertive because he thinks uncertainty is actually extremely low

It will be interesting to see who ends up correct.

My money is on Wang personally

I think, given how uniform the shifts have been but also how neither ever really collapses (I mean, look how little actual movement we've seen from EMAILS coming back up at the worst possible time, or how the GOP stopped the collapse after the Access Hollywood Tape) that Wang is right that this is all basically going back to a partisan mean.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:35

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Talmonis posted:

This makes sense, and I cede the point. Blocking Russian IP's would be detrimental to innocent people in a way that I didn't think of.

Now, what do we do about the Russian government's encouragement (and possible hand in) of the rash of ransomware programs and hacking?

Also, what about non-essential cultural exports, such as new movies?

Economic sanctions, I would assume, but you can't divide communication up into "essential" and "non-essential," that's neither how culture nor communication works. I can't speak to the effectiveness or use of economic sanctions. I don't know a thing about it.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:35

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

WampaLord posted:

No, you need to calm down, too much time in the Right Wing Media thread has gotten to you.

Hillary's got this. If you're gonna freak out, freak out about the Senate.

I'm not freaking out, I've just been wrong about a ton of poo poo this election up to and including telling my friends a year ago that "Trump will get no where near the nomination"

A 269 - 269 tie would be appropo at this stage and would make a certain amount of bizarre sense.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 09:50

Guy Goodbody: Aug 31, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

Non Serviam posted:

Russia meddling in US elections is bad. Clearly the solution is to meddle into their politics.

Some democrats itt are basically calling for a new cold war.

I never called for a cold war, don't make poo poo up.

# ? Nov 1, 2016 19:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Nov: The vindication of Prester Jane by the narcissist Donald Trump

«‹›284 »