|
Flesh Forge posted:I mean the Juan guy who's a regular token blackman/loony lefty lol, yeah him too. The "leftist" who's just a neoliberal shithead that largely agrees with whatever his conservative counterpart says in almost every argument.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:If Trump will go down as worse than Buchanan, we’ll only know after the upcoming election; when he refuses to step down (if he loses) and causes a(nother) constitutional crisis, he’ll have it in the bag. The weird thing at this point isn't that people have this hot take, it's that so many people have the SAME hot take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:lol, yeah him too. The "leftist" who's just a neoliberal shithead that largely agrees with whatever his conservative counterpart says in almost every argument. Juan "I get nervous when I see people in Muslim Garb" Williams?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
I think GW Bush is worse
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:I think GW Bush is worse Not only is Bush worse than Trump, it's not even close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Without Bush and his lack of respect for the rule of law and democracy we wouldn't have Trump, good thing he's getting his just rewards by *checks notes* hanging out with famous liberals and becoming a darling of the liberal decorumsphere. oh
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:...liberal decorumsphere... I know its been repeated often but mainstream liberalism is practically yesterday's conservatism. AOC and the other gang of up and coming liberal/communist stars are the rebirth of true liberalism, and they ain't hobnobbing with GWB....
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I know its been repeated often but mainstream liberalism is practically yesterday's conservatism. Nah they're leftists. I know this seems like splitting hairs but leftism and liberalism really are completely distinct ideologies
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I know its been repeated often but mainstream liberalism is practically yesterday's conservatism. The heck is "true liberalism?" Liberalism as an ideology has always been something very thin on collectivist ideology outside of the assumption that people working in their own self interest will eventually find a socially optimal equilibrium. Justice Dems have way more collectivist in them than the founders of Liberalism did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Nah they're leftists. That's fair, I've been using them interchangeably (and incorrectly it seems).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:That's fair, I've been using them interchangeably (and incorrectly it seems). eh, I tell people irl that I'm "pretty liberal" before seguing into leftist talking points
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:That's fair, I've been using them interchangeably (and incorrectly it seems). It's been part of right wing media to conflate leftism (with it's scary socialism and communism and whatever other collectivisms) with liberalism (which is much more "third way" "the free market, but with the edges rounded off") - using "liberals" as an epithet to denounce everyone to the left of Pinochet, that sort of thing. When everyone else is a liberal, you muddy the distinction between leftists and actual liberal policies
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Socialists hate being called liberal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:When it's all said and done, will Trump go down as the worst president in history? Trump will probably easily qualify as the most incompetent and least functionally capable president. He'll be considered the worst president rated intrinsically on his capacity to serve as president. This ruling will probably also relate to how generally corrupt and compromised he is at all times, even if by pathology moreso than cultivated personal criminality (even though he represents both to a high degree!). The trump presidency, as rated in terms of the extent and severity of negative outcomes generated by it, is not yet in the ballpark of being the ultimately worst presidency. A sufficiently incompetent and dysfunctional president/presidency at least has the benefit of having extreme difficulty in critically engaging upon disastrous acts. George W. Bush is currently a much more damaging president chiefly on account of the specific competencies that they had and utilized to put us in a dramatically, nation-changingly awful lifetime of trillion dollar wars abroad, acts which have almost incalculable human costs (and sadly calculable economic costs) as of the present day. Trump will have successfully done some extremely horrible things (the child separation policy, etc) that can't match up to the horror of much more ambitiously horrible acts (trail of tears, etc). Trump probably won't be allowed or able to do extremely horrifying overall policies/engagements like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have a greater total cost. However, you also have to consider that people who are genuinely, for good reason, considered the worst of the presidents ever are people like Buchanan, who revealed core incompetency when attempting to manage major challenges to the nation. It stands to reason that Trump is far less mentally or temperamentally capable as even people like Buchanan, Pierce, or Johnson, and that under the same/similar circumstances, trump would have left the nation even more profoundly troubled and broken than what Buchanan provided during his presidency. Trump doesn't become a less awful president because he's inheriting a comfortable, easy tenure with lots of stress tolerance built in from the previous administration, especially if he's squandering what we could have accomplished in such a timeframe. It just makes those costs more difficult to qualify or quantify. You also have to consider that lot of the damage of a singularly terrible presidency takes a long time to be truly measured — what's the total damage of something like the immigration policy? Or the Trump SCOTUS appointments? Or the dismantling of the EPA and the total regulatory capture of entire institutions like the FCC? What role will Trump have played in being a perfect asset to authoritarian hostile foreign powers in their systematic attempts to throw our electoral system and democracy into chaos? What will happen to the economic makeup of America under the blitzkrieg of deregulation and the expansion of neoliberal corporate protections permitting something like the gig economy to become the new wholly amoral standard for workplace compensation standards? How far back has he ultimately driven the world in the challenge of climate change? How severe is the total pernicious effect of the lessening of the competence of the US government as a regulatory institution? How severe will the total brain drain be? How severe will the total outcome of Supreme Court rulings permitting wholesale theft of democracy on the state level be, which were otherwise not possible without Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? There's no final tally, and you cannot claim yet that the insular, mobbish, corrupt and profoundly influencable administration that Trump appointed and presides over will have, when all is said and done, no capacity to have done severe structural damage to the united states, things that have to come out over the course of years before we even understand what he really totally did during a four-year hijacking of the institution of the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MikeDelMoro/status/1201936910245085185
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
So two articles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
cr0y posted:So two articles? predictit has 3 as the most likely number, but also bafflingly has impeachment odds still at 80% lol edit: the summary report is well put together and Adam Schiff is a suburb wordsmith oxsnard fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Why do we assume predictit has special insight or is even rational in aggregate
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Why do we assume predictit has special insight or is even rational in aggregate It probably would be close if you could leverage it as much as you want but the weird barriers to entry mean that it's almost certain not
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It probably would be close if you could leverage it as much as you want The barriers to entry mean it's harder for a single player to manipulate the market. So between 30-70, it's less accurate than a true, liquid market but can provide insights at the tail probabilities due to the below oxsnard posted:Yeah but usually it isn't this far away from reality. People laugh at predictit but the betting limits make it harder for one party to manipulate the market and it's common knowledge that well connected (but not high level) people on the Hill use it all the time to do sort of legal insider trading oxsnard posted:Anyways, I did the math a few years ago. Yes/No markets with sufficient trading volume that are dependent on the actions of a small group of people (so not elections, and no random poo poo like "number of trump tweets") that reach 85c resolve that way 95%+ of the time. Realized odds skyrocketing starting at like 75-80%. At 95 cents, the realized odds approach 99% during the time that predictit has been around. So snapping up as many 85c contracts as you can is sort of like shorting volatility. Long term, people are irrational and remember the long shots panning out. Risks are asymmetrical. Could easily clear 10% a year compounded until you run out of contracts/markets available to buy. I let discipline go too often though so that's why I stopped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Seems kinda big that they have access to Rudy's phone records? That's the personal attorney for the president. also, lol that nunes is completely muddled into this poo poo...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
refleks posted:Seems kinda big that they have access to Rudy's phone records? That's the personal attorney for the president. The best part is that everyone pretty much suspected Nunes was involved somehow given how he kept running around telling Trump a bunch of secret poo poo, but I don't think anyone thought he was this involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
God its gonna be a shitshow with Trump between the report and the first hearing in the judiciary tomorrow...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
refleks posted:God its gonna be a shitshow with Trump between the report and the first hearing in the judiciary tomorrow... Is anyone testifying tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Law professors
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:When it's all said and done, will Trump go down as the worst president in history?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The weird thing at this point isn't that people have this hot take, it's that so many people have the SAME hot take. It's not a hot take if it's largely agreed upon. Then it's just speculation. Trump won't leave office unless he feels credibly threatened and it will be to the detriment of absolutely everyone. When he leaves office, he will flee for safety at the expense of absolutely everyone else. Narcissists don't leave power unless they feel like their safety is being threatened. What I feel like is most likely though is that Trump will refuse to leave office but everyone who will attempt to help him keep it and pull the levers of power for him will abandon him, unwilling to lash themselves to a sinking ship as it goes under. Trump will screech and ramble, but ultimately he'll be abandoned and ignored by everyone but his frothing cultists. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Dec 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:He still has ways to go before he can top Andrew Jackson who committed genocide. What's going on at the Southern Border is absolutely genocide
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
refleks posted:Law professors Ok so nothing of importance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Ok so nothing of importance. Basically just asking a bunch of constitutional scholars to explain in very small words how impeachment works
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Ok so nothing of importance. Not gonna be any bombshells. They're there to explain the legal foundation. They're all constitutional experts. 3 selected by D, 1 by R.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:He still has ways to go before he can top Andrew Jackson who committed genocide. Yeah and Obama was directly responsible for equally bad but much more recent Saudi campaign against Yemen. Trying to assign individual morality to each President as though it is super meaningful and there's a really big moral difference is a particularly unsubtle way to whitewash the foreign policy of Democratic presidents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
refleks posted:God its gonna be a shitshow with Trump between the report and the first hearing in the judiciary tomorrow... Trumps already delirious from travel so hold on to your butts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Its just gonna be 16 hours of executive time in a row
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
refleks posted:Its just gonna be 16 hours of executive time in a row Aka Wednesday
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:It's not a hot take if it's largely agreed upon. Then it's just speculation. I honestly don't think this the party CAN abandon him, he's simply too large of a megaphone. I think if he loses in 2020, he will be stay in the limelight and hint at a 2024 run, after he spends about a year or so on how the elections were wrong and stolen from him. His cultists, which are a significant part of the republican party these days, will go along with it, and he will publicly denounce any active politician who still goes against him. He's going to be the Reagan of the republican party even if they don't want it, and Fox will be hesitant to completely turn on him just because of how much of the base will follow him to the ends of the earth. 2020 will not be the least we hear of Trump, and we will likely have the rest of the Trump clan and allies run in races for many elections to come.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Solvency posted:I honestly don't think this the party CAN abandon him, he's simply too large of a megaphone. I think if he loses in 2020, he will be stay in the limelight and hint at a 2024 run, after he spends about a year or so on how the elections were wrong and stolen from him. His cultists, which are a significant part of the republican party these days, will go along with it, and he will publicly denounce any active politician who still goes against him. He's going to be the Reagan of the republican party even if they don't want it, and Fox will be hesitant to completely turn on him just because of how much of the base will follow him to the ends of the earth. 2020 will not be the least we hear of Trump, and we will likely have the rest of the Trump clan and allies run in races for many elections to come. He could die at basically any moment
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
https://www.c-span.org/video/?467019-1/house-intelligence-committee-chair-adam-schiff-speaks-release-impeachment-inquiry-report Schiff is asked about Nunes and he says "im not going to comment on that for now"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Solvency posted:I honestly don't think this the party CAN abandon him, he's simply too large of a megaphone. I think if he loses in 2020, he will be stay in the limelight and hint at a 2024 run, after he spends about a year or so on how the elections were wrong and stolen from him. His cultists, which are a significant part of the republican party these days, will go along with it, and he will publicly denounce any active politician who still goes against him. He's going to be the Reagan of the republican party even if they don't want it, and Fox will be hesitant to completely turn on him just because of how much of the base will follow him to the ends of the earth. 2020 will not be the least we hear of Trump, and we will likely have the rest of the Trump clan and allies run in races for many elections to come. Trump is an old, fat, drug addled man who is in active mental decline. I'd be surprised if he makes it to the end of the election, much less angling at a 2024 run. Even if he somehow survives to 2024, his mental state will have declined to the point where he'll barely be able to speak in sentences which will make his current thought process seem intelligent by comparison. Trump isn't making it to 2024. He'll be dead and in the ground due to his lifestyle and mental decline or living in a retirement home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Yeah, the question is not whether the party will abandon him, the question is how much brain functionality can he lose before he can no longer effectively maintain his cult of personality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:34
|
|