|
PostNouveau posted:Just as a percentage game, right? In Manhattan, it was 86% Biden, 12% Trump. I think you can be optimistic and say only half the Trump voters are going to be dead-ender enough to refuse to convict under any circumstance. I don't know stats well, but I don't think it's ironclad for winning that gamble 12 times in a row. I am a math nerd, and if we use your assumption that 6% of the potential members of a Trump jury will be dead-ender Trump fanatics who will never vote to convict him for anything, then the odds that 12 random people from that pool will not have one of those crazy people is just 47.6% (That is 0.94^12) Although, glass half-full, it isn't random, the prosecutors will presumably research everyone picked for jury duty and kick off everyone who is an obvious Trump fanatic. Glass half-empty though, if NY can trim it down to just 1% of potential jurors being Trump fanatics, there's still about an 11% chance that the jury will have a crazy person on it
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Noted. For the record, low effort doomer posting should be regarded as far worse than low effort "please stop doomer posting" posting IMHO. I mean Donald Trump got indicted, can we have one single day where people in this thread can be free from naysaying and debbie downer poo poo? I have actually been pleasantly surprised that the "nothing matters" doomposting poo poo hasn't been more prevalent. I think right now a lot of people are just holding their fire to see what really happens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The White House is asking Congress to include a 30% tax on cryptocurrency mining in the budget negotiations for next year. eeugh, no please. Just call it a newly-created capital asset and then be done with it, they will eventually sell it. Or hell, whatever, just call it ordinary income without regard to what into creating it, and then just tax it immediately. Crypto is already a headache as it is, and this will just make accounting firms (like I work for) happily charge higher fees to figure out their taxes, and our confused clients will just simply pay it and pass on the cost to their customers.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You could always... not be into crypto. Then everyone wins including you "Don't do that" is a mental command I wish I possessed. Unfortunately, the nature of most of my work right now is "ok, tell me what the gently caress you did last year... really? Wow, (to myself: that was really loving dumb) ok well here's the tax consequences of that dumbass decision you made last year, etc" At least most dumbass decisions are easy to figure out, but crypto is a bit of a headache right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Please don't relitigate the 2016 election
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
UKJeff posted:Is posting about posters not against the rules anymore? These are all from the last two days. I don’t have PMs, so I’m seeking clarification ITT, please. "posting about posters" is indeed against the rules, with a few exceptions when the poster is actually relevant (rare in DnD, more common with tons of added drama on other boards)
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2023 06:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:"posting about posters" is indeed against the rules, with a few exceptions when the poster is actually relevant (rare in DnD, more common with tons of added drama on other boards) I figure I should expand on this a bit. If you post about one specific poster, either named, or by making it super obvious who you are talking about, then yeah that is no bueno and will get you probed. One level above that is posting generally about "the board", or your perception about what a board or what a specific thread believes, or what a notable minority of a board or a specific thread believes. Board vs board drama is its own thing which will get you probed, but ignoring that.... I myself have been guilty of posting about "the conventional wisdom" in the past, and this is tricky. In this situation I fall back on "were they challenged on it? If so, did they back it up?" "is this a new or novel argument? Is it interesting? Are my views being unexpectedly reinforced or challenged by this?" If so, then maybe its fine. If not, then maybe not. If you go a level above that and say that generally speaking a large group (either political, geographical, or whatever) believes X (which maybe you need to support if you are just asserting it as fact, which is another rule if you get challenged), then that is not really posting about posters anymore, at all. Rigel fucked around with this message at 07:40 on May 30, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2023 07:37
|
|
|
zoux posted:I think for a lot of people, and kudos to Republicans for somehow making this indelible connection, a bad economy is when a Democrat is president. I don't know that I've ever seen a Democratic candidate outpoll a Republican on "better for the economy" in my life, even Donald Trump, who is a moron and has publicly failed and declared bankruptcy multiple times, was always "better on the economy". I think that economic matters are very difficult to measure and understand and people have just decided on a better shorthand, because it sure as poo poo isn't based on empirical observation, the opposite actually. The economy was perceived by voters as by far the single biggest strength for Bill Clinton, to the point where a lot of people voted for him for reelection despite thinking he was immoral.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Anti-abortion states are fascist run so I can see the concern with any data sharing that legitimizes fascist states and could possibly assist them. mod hat: I didn't really want to probe this, I just wanted to gently observe that a blunt take this hot and spicy could probably be helped with some kind of a source or an argument crafted with a bit more care than this? I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, but it is kind of hard to respond to this without being on the side of fascism.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 22:17
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think the EFF is in the right to bring up possible concerns and the argument that it is normal does not mean it is the correct action for police in California to take and it makes sense for activists to make an attempt to block it because anti-abortion states are, if not fascist because that's a loaded term but we do like saying that the Republicans are fascists, directly harming people with inhumane laws. yeah, I think I agree with all of that. I am just selfishly hoping you might choose to post with a bit more tact to generate maybe 1.5 fewer reports/week for me to look at. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:after the ACA was passed, Republican voters voted for people who promised to destroy it insofar as they could and then were shocked that their states stripped medical benefits from them Unfortunately. the absolute strength by which they were able to see their forces subjected to made the rest of us realize that facility was not possible, so we no longer tried to achieve deslavery in the north.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2023 21:46
|
|
"
|
koolkal posted:This is very strong rhetoric considering these pro-life politicians and American fascists currently control the House. To be fair, that was mostly New York Dem party idiocy than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Can they give him any of the real Speaker's powers? Or do they have to actually factually elect a new one? A majority can pretty much do whatever they want. They make their own rules, the constitution only requires that the house be run by a speaker, and the courts won't likely get involved with a complaint that this interim speaker can't be given some power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:If they’re going to give McHenry power to run things anyway why not just elect him as speaker and state that business will continue until they can figure out something else, and then he steps down/is axed in favor of whoever they work out? They were hoping to have only a few holdouts who they could then publicly pressure as blocking israel aid and/or gop priorities. When it's over 20, and possibly more though, then thats not really an option.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Right, but that would’ve been get get Jordan the job. The dems do have some modest demands as well for their votes. Maybe a few dems can be peeled off with no strings attached, but Jeffries has indicated that he won't green light his caucus to empower the interim speaker just for free, everyone will want to know the details first.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:USCE 2023: Jordan still having issues taking "No" as a valid answer. I like it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
The 3rd public humiliation of Gym Jordan will begin soon.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
lol, Kevin McCarthy is being forced to humiliate himself by nominating Gym
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
This is just absurd, McCarthy is being openly mocked on the floor as he tries to say with a straight face that Jordan is an effective legislator who listens to colleagues and can reach a compromise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Looks like we are going to settle in at 25 GOP votes against Jordan. He lost 3 more, and gained none.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:McCarthy also was able to make promises to cajole people into voting for him. Whats Gym got? Having people call in death threats? If you threaten people and they vote no anyways, you got nothing. And he has nothing to promise. I did hear one analyst on TV give an explanation (why keep humiliating Jordan?) that made sense. They basically have to show the MAGA grassroots idiots the body to prove that the swamp won't let them rule the house. They put up someone who is far deeper into Trumplandia than almost anyone else, and ostensibly tried as hard as they could to get him elected. Once the voters understand it can't happen, then maybe they could get serious?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Gym Jordan reportedly broke the record (since the house was expanded to 435) for the fewest votes for speaker, as the majority nominee, from the majority party.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Starting to seem that way. I'd be hesitant to give any of them credit as "planners", but it certainly seems possible that they thought they could hijack things by torpedoing all other options. It's always worked for them before. The reported remark that (something like) "it will either be Jordan or the moderates will grow a spine for the first time ever" seems to support this theory. edit: lol, the GOP is holding a secret ballot that basically says "check one, should Jim Jordan drop out? (Yes/No)" Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Oct 20, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
haveblue posted:*looking at the woodchipper that has devoured the sitting speaker and the preferred candidate of the guys who turned the woodchipper on* I like my chances in there Don't forget the preferred candidate of the guys who didn't want the woodchipper turned on, he got emulsified as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Dubar posted:If we just let every rep be speaker for a day, that should get us most of the way through the term I wish they could do that and release a schedule. I would consider taking the day off work for MTG day.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I'm legit curious how long it's been since someone crossed party lines in an affirmative vote for speaker that passed. When did a GOP rep vote for a Democrat, or vice versa? I looked at Pelosi's last vote and Republicans voted in lockstep against her, unsurprisingly. Im not going to say it never happened before, maybe it did a long time ago, but voting for the other party for speaker without permission would probably mean you are not in the party any longer. You may as well switch or declare independent. We dont really have the "3 line whip" from British parliament, but if we did, this vote would be it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Looks like they might actually elect this random mystery speaker
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
OK that's it, Mike Johnson has the votes Edit: we need a new thread title to honor this random mystery speaker
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
He's apparently going to be allowed one short term deal to avoid a shutdown. So I'll give him until about 2 weeks after the next deal after that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
mutata posted:Prop up that flood insurance market instead of buying people out and rebuilding in non-flood prone areas, awwww yeeeeah. It's not just propped up, the feds basically are the flood insurance market. Insurance companies take calls, prepare paperwork, keep a small commission, and send the bill to the feds. They aren't willing to cover that poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Re: suddenly hearing voices in your 40's, I always quietly wonder about extemely severe alcohol use. Hearing angry insulting voices is often one of the last gifts you can potentially get from decades of alcoholism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
Gerund posted:I dont think 8 straight years of Obama made Republicans go towards the middle (McCain and Romney presented themselves as statesmen rather than outsiders). Losing multiple elections energized the fringe anti-government movements to become the main base of the republican party, and the same people who hated losing to Obama now believe that it is impossible for them to lose elections. Parties have often historically reacted to a disappointing loss by doubling down and assuming they weren't pure enough. Concluding that what the people need is to really see the (crazy, horrifying at the time to the middle) difference to win them back. Parties will eventually get tired of losing and do whatever they have to do to become more competitive. The GOP had invested a lot of time and effort catering to their fringe to get them to keep voting every election, its going to take a lot of time wandering the political wilderness and getting their asses kicked before their base finally allows the party to do what they want. The longer it takes for the crazy right fringe to lose their grip on power within the GOP, the better for us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trump's win made two things true for Republican candidates: Another extremely important element in the race was successfully convincing GE voters that you are not actually extreme while successfully dog-whistling your base into enthusiastically supporting you. Trump's support and poll numbers collapsed within months as the people realized what they had done, the GOP lost the house 2 years later, and Trump lost re-election to an objectively poor candidate. Trump's election has put off the GOP's reckoning to the point where they are actually close to re-nominating their big orange loser.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
A quick note on "voting doesn't matter" doom/apathy arguments and/or "Dems bad" debates: as irritating and report-producing as those two subjects may be to some people, they are not forbidden topics of discussion, and current events do occasionally cause them to become relevant topics. When we get closer to an important election and those topics are used more often to just shut down debate and discourage people from talking about what they want to talk about, then this board has often banished those arguments into their own containment thread(s), but we aren't there right now. Randalor posted:Can any member of the house bring forward bills? Can we see the Dems troll the Speaker by bringing forward bills that codify the "extreme left" views of that long-haired hippie, Jesus Christ, complete with Bible quotes backing the bill? Sure, and most members do file bills they care about no matter who is in charge! What tends to happen to the minority party's bills is they get referred to committee, and then the committee.... well gosh, committee time is valuable and limited, so we just didn't get around to your bill this term, sorry!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You have identified why and how these arguments are used to sabotage discussion, and you are choosing to allow them do to exactly that. You have chosen not to enforce the rules. Are there some cases where someone could have made these types of arguments that they did not actually believe in just to piss off posters in D&D? Sure, I guess, I'm sure its happened. I believe most of these posters are articulating a genuinely-held belief which is not obviously crazy on its face. These aren't arguments put forth by flat-earthers or bigfoot enthusiasts. Also, things change. Topics that were once worn out and stale during the height of election insanity don't get talked about for a while, events can revive old arguments, we get new people posting here, etc. I'm sure these topics will get banished once again to containment threads at some point next year.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I forget if there was a rule in here about relitigating 2016, so I apologize in advance. It is a topic to be cautious about broaching, if it is relevant to a point your making (which perhaps it is here). When things devolve into the 478th debate of whether or not Bernie was cheated/would have beaten Trump/etc is when we have to change the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Digamma-F-Wau posted:one thing that sucks is that I doubt there's anyone in the chain of succession that's pro-palestine Perhaps quietly, but it is difficult to think of a less politically relevant group in the USA than voters who care a lot about Palestine. Meanwhile, there are a significant number of voters who otherwise may vote for Democrats who likely wouldn't if the Democratic party started opposing Israel right now. You can make the ethical and moral argument, but you can't really make an electoral argument for opposing Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: If it is reasonably certain (which is a big if) that a given voter would vote for Democrats if they bothered to vote, then mathematically choosing to stay home is about the same as choosing to cast a half vote for the GOP. Why? If the GOP somehow convinces a prior Dem voter to switch parties and vote GOP, that is a 2 vote swing. If they instead convince a prior reliable Dem voter to stay home, that is only half as effective, but still better for them than if they continued to vote for the Dems.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:This kind of rules change needs 60 senators. I believe Sinema has indicated she’s in favor of the change. They also might actually be able to scrape together the 9 Republicans if this continues. Well, to be clear anything that the constitution doesn't say requires a supermajority, only needs 50+1. But its easier to just assume the nuclear option won't be used unless a lot of senators in leadership positions start discussing whether or not to use it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
Staluigi posted:The Koos Protocol: this is posting about posters, unless it's funny enough Pretty sure I invoke the humor exception more than anyone 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2023 17:37
|
|