|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Like I’ve said, I’m not talking about the loving stories, I’m talking about what I can see and hear with my own eyes and ears, on the White House YouTube channel. So I guess they’re framing it as “this is our guy, ain’t he swell”. Which, imo, he isn’t. I’m not talking about any particular gaffe, I’m talking about my read of his overall energy and stamina, and it seems insane to ignore that in a situation as serious as this. With stakes this high, someone should have been on this 3 years ago. But that’s the hand you’ve got, so again, good luck. If Biden dies in office, there will be a successor, a peaceful transition, and the party will continue to pursue the platform they run Biden on. Of the concerns I have about the future, that one isn't causing me to lose sleep.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Technically true, but meaningless in practice. The primary is nearly over and there were no serious challengers even at the start. How would a replacement even be selected in a way that the voters would accept? Biden will be the nominee unless he suffers some kind of acute health event which either kills or clearly and indefinitely/permanently incapacitates him. I am certain of this, and if you aren't I would like you to describe how the alternative would play out to convince me that it's a realistic possibility. Clinton effectively won the primary in late April, even then she could have pulled out. Obama won the primary in June. Biden can pull out and nominate a successor and then a nominee would be decided at the convention. I am not going to argue that this is likely, or would necessarily be electorally successful but it is possible. The primary is still continuing, Biden is not the nominee until the convention. EDIT: Even if Biden is inevitable, that fact doesn't negate any criticisms of him. hooman fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 06:54
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:If Biden dies in office, there will be a successor, a peaceful transition, and the party will continue to pursue the platform they run Biden on. My concerns are about him as a candidate, not president
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 06:58
|
|
|
hooman posted:EDIT: Even if Biden is inevitable, that fact doesn't negate any criticisms of him. No, but it is pretty important to Hieronymous Alloy's contention that he supports Biden (as a candidate for President in 2024, not unconditionally in all things) because at this point the only alternative is Trump. And that's what you were responding to, so I figured I should make the point. e: Regarding the idea that Biden could pull out and indicate a successor - he could, but if he was inclined to do that why would he not have done it prior to halfway through the primary? Every indication is that he won't, so saying he could is about as useful to the discussion as saying that Henry Wallace could rise from the grave as a lich and enter the race. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 07:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Again, that's not an example of someone who believes that a ceasefire and an end to the genocide are the same thing. The example provided was of a potentially misleading headline. You have been given an example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 07:18
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Again, you're the one, on your own, that falsely conflated the endless harping about old senile Biden with the idea that universal healthcare is good or that arming Israel is bad, as rebuttal to people talking firmly about the first. No, I didn't. You've just made up arguments and beliefs because I'm one of the critics so therefore I must hold the same views as all the other critics, and when I reject the beliefs you think I'm supposed to have, you've got a nice little buzzword ready to go that says since I don't hold or defend that view you've decided is mine, then obviously that's proof I believe it and I'm just a coward retreating from your amazing debate skills. I don't believe the claims that Biden's senile. I've never even said anything leaning that way. I feel like I've been pretty consistent over the past few years that the Republicans are irredeemable fascists and the biggest problem with the Democrats is they aren't treating the GOP like the threat they are. But since I criticized Blue Team, you keep banging that drum because you've decided that the only reason anybody would criticize the Dems/Biden is because they're a chud or they're a fool who's been corrupted by chud propaganda. Which is exactly what I was saying keeps loving happening in the post that kicked this off, so thanks for the examples, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 07:31
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:No, but it is pretty important to Hieronymous Alloy's contention that he supports Biden (as a candidate for President in 2024, not unconditionally in all things) because at this point the only alternative is Trump. And that's what you were responding to, so I figured I should make the point. I'm not arguing against their support for Biden as a candidate. They have every right to support whomever they please in a primary. I agree that Biden seems inevitable however Biden can drop out, and that is not an equal possibility to the undead, lets not lose that amongst the hyperbole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 07:36
|
|
|
God no wonder this Senator Britt is getting grilled on her SOTU response video. Choosing to do your one big chance to sock it the President and critique his big speech to congress and the nation in the style of a Tiktok influencer response video to "drama" and treating it all like one big jokey thing with the tone and body language you take during it is certainly a choice. The GOP really is something these days
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:No, but it is pretty important to Hieronymous Alloy's contention that he supports Biden (as a candidate for President in 2024, not unconditionally in all things) because at this point the only alternative is Trump. And that's what you were responding to, so I figured I should make the point. Stein seems like a lock for the Green Party nomination, so there will be at least one other alternative available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
I'm not talking about alternative people who you technically can vote for. I'm talking about alternatives who have a meaningful chance to win. e: hooman posted:I'm not arguing against their support for Biden as a candidate. They have every right to support whomever they please in a primary. Yeah, it's not an equal possibility - it's very slightly more likely, which is why I said it's "about as useful to the discussion" rather than "exactly as useful to the discussion." I prefer to discuss meaningful possibilities, not ridiculous long shots. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
edit: nevermind, unnecessary after the post I responded to was edited
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I'm not talking about alternative people who you technically can vote for. I'm talking about alternatives who have a meaningful chance to win. Why? Why is that what you want to talk about? Jill loving Stein winning the election is just as likely as your one vote for Biden making any difference. That is to say, both have zero probability. So why do you care if the person you vote for has a reasonable chance to win? Your vote does not affect those chances "meaningfully" anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Jill loving Stein winning the election is just as likely as your one vote for Biden making any difference. That is to say, both have zero probability. If you live in California, sure. If you vote in the right swing state, your probability of casting a pivotal vote is around 1 in 10 million. That paper is old so maybe now it might be between 1 in a million and 1 in 100 million. That's small but not so small that people don't make decisions in pursuit of it. If you buy a Powerball/Mega Millions ticket, the odds of getting the jackpot are about 1 in 300 million. And these tickets sell very well, but my homemade "zero probability of winning" lottery tickets sell very poorly! The difference between zero and non-zero. Hard to visualize the most likely scenario where Jill Stein wins an election - maybe if Trump and Biden are both caught, on camera, committing heinous crimes? Probably not even then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:
Trump literally stole and hid state secrets to impress car dealership owners, admitted it, and stored them in a side bathroom or unlocked shed. I can find daily footage of a heinous crime Biden is facilitating. Hard to imagine any crime would matter at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Hard to visualize the most likely scenario where Jill Stein wins an election - maybe if Trump and Biden are both caught, on camera, committing heinous crimes? Probably not even then. The most likely scenario where Stein wins is that the GOP or DNC nominates her. There are no scenarios where those parties are both participating in the election and the Green Party gets more votes
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The most likely scenario where Stein wins is that the GOP or DNC nominates her. There are no scenarios where those parties are both participating in the election and the Green Party gets more votes I think you're right and the odds of this are around 1-in-a-trillion if not lower, while the odds that someone in the right state might cast a pivotal vote are thousands of times better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:If you live in California, sure. If you vote in the right swing state, your probability of casting a pivotal vote is around 1 in 10 million. That paper is old so maybe now it might be between 1 in a million and 1 in 100 million. That's small but not so small that people don't make decisions in pursuit of it. If you buy a Powerball/Mega Millions ticket, the odds of getting the jackpot are about 1 in 300 million. And these tickets sell very well, but my homemade "zero probability of winning" lottery tickets sell very poorly! The difference between zero and non-zero. And a low probability of your vote deciding the election doesn't make it worthless, because the impact is large. Biden winning in 2020 caused trillions of dollars of government spending, but to make the arithmetic easier it meant that about half the country got $2000 worth of stimulus checks. That's 330 billion dollars, so even if your vote had a 1 in 100 million chance of swinging the election it'd be worth $3300 in stimulus checks alone (assuming you care about other people getting aid).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Why? Why is that what you want to talk about? No, I'm in North Carolina. The chance of my individual vote making a difference is rather small, but I think it's proportionally much higher than the chance of Stein winning the election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:(assuming you care about other people getting aid). Yeah, you have to have a lot of empathy for your vote to be worth it on strictly rational swing-the-election grounds. If you say that voting costs about $10 of your time and effort, and it has a 1 in 10-million chance of making a difference, then that implies that Biden being elected over Trump (or the other way around) is worth $100 million to you. For the country it's worth much more than that. But is it worth that much for you personally? Another way to visualize that is that you'd rather see Biden beat Trump than see Trump beat Biden AND you get $100 million with no taxes on it. I think the average American, given that choice, SHOULD choose "Biden beats Trump." But the average American, given that choice, WOULD choose to be a centimillionaire in a country run by Trump than keep their current financial position in a country run by Biden. Maybe I'm underestimating the average voter - which never lost a politician an election - but I think it's more that voting is driven by factors other than wanting to swing the election - virtue signalling, civic duty expectations etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
If two events have probabilities within 0.00001% of each other, it's more than fair to say that they are equally likely. You can try to move the goalposts to "proportionately likely" but that wasn't my claim. And yes, in the best case scenario, it's like buying a lottery ticket. And if that's your reason for voting, that's fine. But it makes any kind of vote-shaming look really stupid. "You didn't want to wait in line for an hour to buy a lottery ticket?! How dare you!" Furthermore, it is relevant to anyone whose reasons for voting might be a mix of practical and idealistic. If you think it's your civic duty to vote for your preferred candidate, and your preferred candidate is a 3rd party candidate, or if you have a feeling of moral compulsion not to vote for a candidate who is doing things you abhor, you might nevertheless decide to compromise your principles if you see a pragmatic reason to do so. When the pragmatic argument is talking about absolute best-case theoretical scenario probabilities of 1 in 10 million, you would have to hold your principles very lightly indeed to be swayed by that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If two events have probabilities within 0.00001% of each other, it's more than fair to say that they are equally likely. You can try to move the goalposts to "proportionately likely" but that wasn't my claim. What you actually said is that they both have "zero probability." Casting a pivotal vote definitely doesn't have zero probability (if you live in the right state). Now you're saying that the probabilities might not be zero, but they're very similar. That's a completely different idea. One-in-ten-million is not "equally likely" to one-in-ten-trillion just because they're "within 0.00001% of each other." The former is a million times more likely than the latter. A million is not equivalent to one. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to use their time, money, or votes - there's a separate thread for all that. I'm just trying to correct the math here. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
^^^ Yes, also a good point. ^^^Jimbozig posted:If two events have probabilities within 0.00001% of each other, it's more than fair to say that they are equally likely. You can try to move the goalposts to "proportionately likely" but that wasn't my claim. I feel like we've completely lost the original thread of discussion at this point. My intent was not to launch some sort of criticism at people considering voting for Stein for idealistic reasons, but to make it clear that I don't think anyone seriously believes there's a meaningful chance of her winning and therefore discussing her becoming President as an alternative potential outcome to Trump or Biden winning is pointless. Just as I don't think anyone seriously believes that Biden is considering dropping out at this point in the primary, and therefore discussing the possibility feels like more of a distraction than a serious point of consideration. Maybe I'm wrong though. If anyone seriously thinks that Biden might decide to drop out of the race soon, or that Stein has a meaningful chance to win, by all means make your case. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Trump literally stole and hid state secrets to impress car dealership owners, admitted it, and stored them in a side bathroom or unlocked shed. This is a parlor trick using the same word “crime” to mean different things while pretending it means the same thing and deserves to be called out. So, be called out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is a parlor trick using the same word “crime” to mean different things while pretending it means the same thing and deserves to be called out. So, be called out. That's right, enabling a genocide is far worse than storing some papers
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
The post was responding to me and by "heinous crime" I really meant "salacious action that makes the candidate look totally untrustworthy to virtually every American voter." Using hard drugs on camera like Rob Ford, engaging in totally taboo sexual behavior on camera, etc. This meaning excludes both improper document storage and enabling a war crime against the civilians of a third-world country. I don't think any federal-level American politician, in history, has bungled their career as badly as Trump and Biden would both have to bungle theirs for a third party candidate to have a remote shot at victory. If I'm wrong about that I would sincerely love to hear the story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
RealityWarCriminal posted:That's right, enabling a genocide is far worse than storing some papers Unfortunately for you, Trump easily did both and will continue to do both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:What you actually said is that they both have "zero probability." Casting a pivotal vote definitely doesn't have zero probability (if you live in the right state). I'm literally a stats prof and I don't need your correction. If I say an event with a probability of somewhere between 0.0000000001 and 0.0000001 is "zero" I'm not being inaccurate in any way. I am in fact being far more precise than is typical for statistics in this thread. If you say flipping a coin is 50/50 I'm not going to correct you with "oh, actually, we haven't been able to confirm that for every common type of coin. The number of flips required to confirm it to within an accuracy of 0.0000001 is impractical. And some coins have been proven to have a slight bias." Frankly, that's just pedantry that is useless to the point of stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I'm literally a stats prof and I don't need your correction. I'm not trying to correct you as a person or as a scholar. I just disagree with a post on the internet. I'm sure that in conducting your scholarship you exercise totally different ways of talking about numbers than when posting on forums on a weekend. If we're discussing and comparing events with very low probabilities, then the differences between 1-in-10-million, 1-in-10-trillion, and zero are meaningful. I don't think it's pedantry, I think it's the level of precision required when comparing extremely improbable events to each other. When we're talking about a 50% probability, precision to the ten-millionths place is pedantry. When we're talking about a one-in-ten-million event, it's necessary. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If two events have probabilities within 0.00001% of each other, it's more than fair to say that they are equally likely. By this way of thinking, voting in any American election ever, not just this one, is meaningless from an outcome standpoint and it's wrong. The differences between small numbers and zero difference are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is a parlor trick using the same word “crime” to mean different things while pretending it means the same thing and deserves to be called out. So, be called out. i have called the post out. pray i do not call it out further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
Democrats should pressure their representatives not to ban TikTok it is an unforced error.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
Liberals only exist to rationalize the policy shat out by the Republucan id in the previous cycle. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If two events have probabilities within 0.00001% of each other, it's more than fair to say that they are equally likely. In that case, I'm betting on becoming president because quantum tunneling teleports me into the oval office. It's also equally likely
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Liberals only exist to rationalize the policy shat out by the Republucan id in the previous cycle. Source?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Source?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
I see US politics things are going to continue to get super duper normaler the closer we get to the election
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
Liberals are deeply saddened that they have to vote for a genocide enabler they'd otherwise be horrified by if it was the other guy doing it, all of this thread is a testament to that (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
I know Sundays and the wrong phases of the moon get goons riled up, but could we please not do electoralism and low content shitposts here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
^^^^^^ Edit: sorry, I was typing this before you posted! I'll drop the subject.James Garfield posted:In that case, I'm betting on becoming president because quantum tunneling teleports me into the oval office. It's also equally likely Yeah, I suppose that makes only slightly less sense than deciding who to vote for on the assumption that your vote will actually decide the election. Basically, Jill Stein winning has no chance, your vote deciding the election has no chance. So if you're worried that both major parties have nominated someone who is losing their mental faculties, you can feel free to vote for someone else since your vote will not be decisive and nobody can make you vote for either of these senile genocidaires. And you can also feel free to keep worrying because the only way the next president will have a well-functioning brain is if one of these dudes kicks the bucket before January and their replacement is marginally less old. That scenario is vastly more likely than any of these others we've been talking about. Statistically, each of them has somewhere between 5-10% chance of dying in the next year. (Also, I should note that those of us who were aware of politics in 2000 saw what happens when a state that is crucial for electoral victory is actually decided by a small number of votes: they rig it. So the theoretical 1 in 10 million goes down even closer to zero. This is why it's important to have control over local and state governments: when it comes time for the rigging, you want your guys doing it.) Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:05
|
|