Poker Forum
Over 1,255,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 90 of 93 FirstFirst ... 40808889909192 ... LastLast
Results 6,676 to 6,750 of 6905
  1. #6676
    LOL

    Exactly none of that is from The_Donald. They specialize in meme magic, not inside information and coherent analyses.
  2. #6677
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,725
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You think Pocahontas has a chance against Trump?
    Who is Pocahontas?

    Run a progressive democrat/bag of potato chips and he/she/it would destroy Trump.

    Run an establishment democrat and you might as well handed Trump another 4 years.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  3. #6678
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Who is Pocahontas?
    Really?
  4. #6679
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,753
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Really?
    I haven't got a clue who it refers to. Maybe it's because I'm not American, and neither is Jack. We'd have to have an active interest in USA politics, rather than occasionally talk shit about it on a poker forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #6680
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Tether to reality depends on why somebody is rich and famous. Kid Rock is rich and famous because he worked. He built a skill, business, brand that people wanted to buy. Are entertainers the best example of skin in the game? No, they may not even be in the top ten. But they're still significantly better an example of it than career politicians who have little experience with anything other than receiving donations and making laws that don't affect them.
    Nice, now we're getting somewhere.

    So I think this comes down to fundamental differences in how we see the world. I believe you have a rather simplistic (no value judgement here) view of how deserving people are of what they have. Or maybe we aren't so divergent here, as you admit that there is some sort of hierarchical order to deservedness, with ??? on the top, entertainers somewhere in the middle and politicians on the bottom.

    Either way, I am agnostic in regards to any specific case, but if I think of all similar entertainers, I find it very hard to see the industry as a meritocracy. I'm sure there were many other talented performers working just as hard to get discovered, others who were discovered but were a little too early or a little to late with the style they brought, etc. So just to get to the start of their career as a star, theres a tremendous amount of luck.

    Once they have made it, there's a massive industry that gets behind them-- people who are arguably equally or more talented than the star, only in a field like marketing or event planning, only difference being they ended up on a path that brought them to whatever corner of the industry they find themselves in...

    I mean, I feel myself drifting towards a deterministic argument, and that's probably because that's ultimately what I believe, but even without going all the way there, I think it's really hard to make the argument that a pop star actually internalized the risk they were taking in setting out on the path they set out on. If they aren't responsible for assuming the risk, how exactly can we award them with the credit for reaping the rewards? Within the set of pop stars, are some more deserving of credit for their success than others? Sure, if we set aside pure determinism so that we can have a meaningful discussion on this topic, of course-- but we're not comparing pop stars to pop stars. Unless you're arguing that Kid Rock is somehow unique in his pop stardom, we're comparing pop stars to politicians.

    As for your claims about politicians, I think there's some pretty clear bias. How are donations, for the purposes of this comparison, different from concert tickets sold? Your description of a politician's experience is a poor caricature. Here, let me have a turn: Pop stars have little experience with anything other than receiving royalties and performing songs and dance routines talented people have written and choreographed.
    Last edited by boost; 07-21-2017 at 10:54 AM.
  6. #6681
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I haven't got a clue who it refers to. Maybe it's because I'm not American, and neither is Jack. We'd have to have an active interest in USA politics, rather than occasionally talk shit about it on a poker forum.
    Well, you both seem to be pretty well informed when it comes to crass things that Donald Trump says. So I'm kinda surprised here.

    Also, haven't you seen 'Night at the Museum'?

    Pocahontas was a Native American guide who accompanied Lewis and Clark. Shit, if you don't know Pocahontas, you probably don't know Lewis and Clark either. Way way way way back in the day when American had just recently broken free of it's foul British oppressors, the plan was to expand west. Lewis and Clark were tasked with finding a river route across the continent. They interacted with many native tribes along the way. One of the more friendly ones loaned them Pocahontas as a guide and interpreter.

    She's one of the most famous native american figures in american history. There was a Disney movie made about her. However it had absolutely nothing to do with Lewis and Clark. So the historical accuracy of that story is highly dubious. Nonetheless, Disney used Pocahontas because she's a recognizable character to Americans.

    Anyway....once upon a time Elizabeth Warren made an outrageous claim that she's a minority because she has Native American (specifically Cherokee) ancestors. However, that was an erroneous belief she had based on some fairy tale her grandma told her when she was a kid. Or something like that. In any event, she's most clearly NOT of native american descent, and has yet to renounce that claim.

    Trump turned it into a joke by mockingly referring to Warren as "Pocahontas"
  7. #6682
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,753
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    Well, you both seem to be pretty well informed when it comes to crass things that Donald Trump says. So I'm kinda surprised here.
    Jack is somewhat more anti-Trump than I am. I'm indifferent. I follow him on Twitter because I find him amusing.

    I haven't seen that museum film but I know of it. I've heard of the historical person Pocahontas, but at school they don't really ram down our throats the history of USA ditching the British. Not sure why. Perhaps it's because we lost and have since become an inferior power, or perhaps it's because of the sneaky fucking French who should've had more foresight and realised a superpowerful Britian is better than a superpowerful USA. Stupid French, it's all their fault.

    Anyway that's what I know about USA independance. Pocahontas is a Disney film I haven't seen.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 07-21-2017 at 11:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #6683
    'the fuck are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    The Lewis and Clark Expedition from May 1804 to September 1806


    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Pocahontas (born Matoaka, known as Amonute, c. 1596–1617) was a Native American[2][3][4] woman notable for her association with the colonial settlement at Jamestown, Virginia.
  9. #6684
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,753
    Location
    England
    haha
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #6685
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    'the fuck are you talking about?

    [/B]

    [/B][/B]
    Fuck!! I got Sacajawea confused with Pocahontas.

    Luckily, thanks to Trump, it's ok to call all native american women "pocahontas". So I'm not wrong.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 07-21-2017 at 11:27 AM.
  11. #6686
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,725
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Well, you both seem to be pretty well informed when it comes to crass things that Donald Trump says. So I'm kinda surprised here.

    Also, haven't you seen 'Night at the Museum'?

    Pocahontas was a Native American guide who accompanied Lewis and Clark. Shit, if you don't know Pocahontas, you probably don't know Lewis and Clark either. Way way way way back in the day when American had just recently broken free of it's foul British oppressors, the plan was to expand west. Lewis and Clark were tasked with finding a river route across the continent. They interacted with many native tribes along the way. One of the more friendly ones loaned them Pocahontas as a guide and interpreter.

    She's one of the most famous native american figures in american history. There was a Disney movie made about her. However it had absolutely nothing to do with Lewis and Clark. So the historical accuracy of that story is highly dubious. Nonetheless, Disney used Pocahontas because she's a recognizable character to Americans.

    Anyway....once upon a time Elizabeth Warren made an outrageous claim that she's a minority because she has Native American (specifically Cherokee) ancestors. However, that was an erroneous belief she had based on some fairy tale her grandma told her when she was a kid. Or something like that. In any event, she's most clearly NOT of native american descent, and has yet to renounce that claim.

    Trump turned it into a joke by mockingly referring to Warren as "Pocahontas"
    To clarify, I know who the historical Pocahontas was, I just didn't know who you were referring to as her


    And it had to be another Trump inside giggle


    And yeah, Elizabeth Warren would fucking destroy Trump. The only actual candidate who would narrowly lose to Trump was Hillary. Guess what happened
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  12. #6687
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Nice, now we're getting somewhere.

    So I think this comes down to fundamental differences in how we see the world. I believe you have a rather simplistic (no value judgement here) view of how deserving people are of what they have. Or maybe we aren't so divergent here, as you admit that there is some sort of hierarchical order to deservedness, with ??? on the top, entertainers somewhere in the middle and politicians on the bottom.

    Either way, I am agnostic in regards to any specific case, but if I think of all similar entertainers, I find it very hard to see the industry as a meritocracy. I'm sure there were many other talented performers working just as hard to get discovered, others who were discovered but were a little too early or a little to late with the style they brought, etc. So just to get to the start of their career as a star, theres a tremendous amount of luck.

    Once they have made it, there's a massive industry that gets behind them-- people who are arguably equally or more talented than the star, only in a field like marketing or event planning, only difference being they ended up on a path that brought them to whatever corner of the industry they find themselves in...

    I mean, I feel myself drifting towards a deterministic argument, and that's probably because that's ultimately what I believe, but even without going all the way there, I think it's really hard to make the argument that a pop star actually internalized the risk they were taking in setting out on the path they set out on. If they aren't responsible for assuming the risk, how exactly can we award them with the credit for reaping the rewards? Within the set of pop stars, are some more deserving of credit for their success than others? Sure, if we set aside pure determinism so that we can have a meaningful discussion on this topic, of course-- but we're not comparing pop stars to pop stars. Unless you're arguing that Kid Rock is somehow unique in his pop stardom, we're comparing pop stars to politicians.
    I don't mean to suggest entertainers are some stalwart example of skin in the game. In private industry, they're probably among the worst.

    As for your claims about politicians, I think there's some pretty clear bias. How are donations, for the purposes of this comparison, different from concert tickets sold? Your description of a politician's experience is a poor caricature. Here, let me have a turn: Pop stars have little experience with anything other than receiving royalties and performing songs and dance routines talented people have written and choreographed.
    Let's contrast. Kid Rock competes for private citizens to buy stuff he makes. They buy it when they like it enough. If he doesn't perform, he gets out of their favor and they don't buy it as much. In politics, they compete for the private citizens' votes. The donations are a tool to get more votes. Then when they have the votes they create laws that don't affect them, positively affect their donors, and have a mess of effects on those that voted for them.

    It's not like there is no skin in the game for politicians, but it is displaced. We see this in how politicians can consistently screw up yet don't lose status because of it. When private citizens screw up consistently, they lose a lot. Let's take Obama for example. If you had a job in which you caused a significant portion of it to double in cost in a few years, you would be fired faster than you can blink. Yet, Obama did that and suffered very little consequence. That's not to say there was no consequence. The Democrats did eventually get voted out in a lot of places because of it. There is *some* skin in the game for politicians.
  13. #6688
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    And yeah, Elizabeth Warren would fucking destroy Trump. The only actual candidate who would narrowly lose to Trump was Hillary. Guess what happened
    Oh man, you've got it so backwards.

    There's no way that an angrier, less experienced, version of Hillary would get MORE votes than actual Hillary.
  14. #6689
    The most important metrics are showing that if the election was held today, Trump would win by even more. Those metrics are changes in registration and some economy stuff.

    Furthermore, Trump lost somewhere around a few million votes from two sources that he won't next time: (1) hardcore conservatives who thought he was a liberal Democrat. Most of those people have gotten on board by now and will vote for his reelection. (2) Middle-of-the-road voters who bought into the uncertainty and Hitler-esque accusations. Lots of those people have had their concerns assuaged and will vote for him next time.

    The way Trump loses 2020 is if there is a significant calamity over the next 3.5 years. Obviously it would have to be a real one, not one of those that some are hallucinating.

    Progressives certainly could win if they get a progressive superstar like Obama, who hits all the right buttons rhetorically and identity-wise.
  15. #6690
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Oh man, you've got it so backwards.

    There's no way that an angrier, less experienced, version of Hillary would get MORE votes than actual Hillary.
    I'm gonna disagree on this. Pocahontas has real appeal to people who eschew economics, and there are a lot of those. Crooked did not have that appeal in a strong way. Pocahontas would galvanize the Democrat base. I was saying years ago that Crooked would lose the general because she inspires nobody. Pocahontas inspires.
  16. #6691
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I was saying years ago that Crooked would lose the general because she inspires nobody. Pocahontas inspires.
    Only on the extreme left. Those on the right find her repulsive. And from what I see and hear, those in the middle, lean away from her more so than they lean toward her.

    As much as she inspires, she repulses. She's similar to Trump in that way. She's polarizing. But she doesn't appeal to the middle enough to win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, etc. Trump does.

    Dems aren't gonna win PA back with Pocahontas.
  17. #6692
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Only on the extreme left. Those on the right find her repulsive. And from what I see and hear, those in the middle, lean away from her more so than they lean toward her.

    As much as she inspires, she repulses. She's similar to Trump in that way. She's polarizing. But she doesn't appeal to the middle enough to win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, etc. Trump does.

    Dems aren't gonna win PA back with Pocahontas.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she would beat Trump. I suspect she may not even run simply because she doesn't wanna go through the Hell that is fighting the Master Brander. Also the Midwest isn't as conservative as people think right now. Part of it is the home of progressive views. Trump won it where other Republicans failed because of his focus on labor, strength, and order. Crooked was the first Democrat to eschew those rhetorically.

    I do think Pocahontas would have done better in 2016 than Crooked did, though.
  18. #6693
    If Crooked had run a competent campaign, I think she would have beaten Trump. She did virtually everything wrong. And we underestimate how successful Fake News was at hypnotizing the majority of voters into thinking Trump hated them and would destroy things.

    But that's gone for 2020. Democrats will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to win that one.
  19. #6694
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,725
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Progressives certainly could win if they get a progressive superstar like Obama, who hits all the right buttons rhetorically and identity-wise.
    Obama is as corporate as corporate comes. He did appeal to progressives and won though

    There are a lot of disenfranchised progressives right now, and crucially attacking obamacare won't get those on board
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  20. #6695
    Obama was deeply progressive, though not perfectly progressive.

    "Progressive" has been changed to describe real socialism regarding domestic policies. Obama was only half that, because, like you said, he was also corporatist. Today when progressives talk about true progressivism, it's socialism.
  21. #6696
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    There are a lot of disenfranchised progressives right now, and crucially attacking obamacare won't get those on board
    Sadly, that is true. They want government in charge of healthcare, not government regulating profit-oriented healthcare. What they don't know is that as bad as the latter is, the former is even worse. But I guess that's to be expected of people who grow up in an education system that doesn't teach relevant history and economics.
  22. #6697
    Actually I'm not sure if it's a problem that formal education can fix. There is a real problem of skin in the game in academics. It's not a coincidence that many of the worst ideas are very popular among academics and very unpopular among producers.
  23. #6698
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Furthermore, Trump lost somewhere around a few million votes from two sources that he won't next time: (1) hardcore conservatives who thought he was a liberal Democrat. Most of those people have gotten on board by now and will vote for his reelection. (2) Middle-of-the-road voters who bought into the uncertainty and Hitler-esque accusations. Lots of those people have had their concerns assuaged and will vote for him next time.

    This is why I think you talk nonsense a lot of the time. It isn't because you aren't a smart guy it's because you go here is a reason that something could happen therefore it happens and that is it. We are all bias of this but I think you do it to the extreme at times or at least you don't hide it enough.

    Number 1 is a more realistic thing but there are still definitely issues that hardcore conservatives will have with Trump but this is irrelevant because who do they vote for? Middle of the road voters will care about what appeals to them at the exact time it happens. I'd argue that a lot of them (if still < half but probably not) voted for Trump anyway because of a number of things rather than just the one reason that he was compared to hitler.

    It's lazy analysis.
    Last edited by Savy; 07-21-2017 at 07:38 PM.
  24. #6699
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If Crooked had run a competent campaign, I think she would have beaten Trump. She did virtually everything wrong. And we underestimate how successful Fake News was at hypnotizing the majority of voters into thinking Trump hated them and would destroy things.

    But that's gone for 2020. Democrats will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to win that one.
    What do you think Hillary did correctly? I started the whole thing thinking Trump lulz and Hillary is normal. I have a bias source on US politics somewhat (here and the BBC which some would argue was a lot more Hilllary skewed, I don't). Of the debates I watched I thought Hillary won (I think I watched most of 1 bits of the others).

    What do you think had me thinking at the end of the election that I wouldn't vote for either? (I'd vote GJ who actually would be the most appealing choice I've had in politics at any point). If I had to vote for one I probably would have voted for Hillary but not because I thought Hillary > Trump if it was based on the person I'd vote the opposite as I would have with Brexit I just dislike giving my vote to very socially conservative people because I think it gives (and it does) power to people who will do stuff I'm against* more (somewhat like Trump is doing on some social issues).

    I'd say I'm a fairly good representation of smarky liberal.

    *I should argue most of the things the average Brexit voter is against I wouldn't agree with things like freedom of movement I think are top notch things. If I could pick my favourite politicians I'd pick people who run for the Tories but on average (and especially in my area that I vote for) Labour is winning my vote easily.
    Last edited by Savy; 07-21-2017 at 07:37 PM.
  25. #6700
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    This is why I think you talk nonsense a lot of the time. It isn't because you aren't a smart guy it's because you go here is a reason that something could happen therefore it happens and that is it. We are all bias of this but I think you do it to the extreme at times or at least you don't hide it enough.

    Number 1 is a more realistic thing but there are still definitely issues that hardcore conservatives will have with Trump but this is irrelevant because who do they vote for? Middle of the road voters will care about what appeals to them at the exact time it happens. I'd argue that a lot of them (if still < half but probably not) voted for Trump anyway because of a number of things rather than just the one reason that he was compared to hitler.

    It's lazy analysis.
    I stated what has happened and what is happening. The question is to what degree.
  26. #6701
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    What do you think Hillary did correctly?
    Do you mean incorrectly? If you mean correctly, then what she did correctly that others do incorrectly is, well, I can't think of anything.

    If you mean incorrectly, her main problem was disregarding the Midwest. This was a deviation from what every other Democrat had done before her, including her husband. She barely campaigned in any of them (didn't even go to Wisconsin once IIRC). She abandoned the traditional Democrat message, which has been specially formulated to appeal to the Midwest. They love labor and order up there, yet whenever the opportunity arose to address those, she took the side against them. Reports are that Bill Clinton tried to get her to change because he could see there was a big problem with her dismissal of the Midwest. Could be true reports or could be him trying to save face after such shocking failure in the Midwest on election night.

    She almost never campaigned and ran a national campaign instead of an electoral one. She believed hack pollsters and hack advisers regarding polls. The message she probably got from the poll analysis was that she didn't need to do much of anything because she was many points ahead. They never bothered to question the methodology of the polls and other relevant measurements.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-21-2017 at 10:39 PM.
  27. #6702
    I meant correctly.
  28. #6703
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do you mean incorrectly? If you mean correctly, then what she did correctly that others do incorrectly is, well, I can't think of anything.

    If you mean incorrectly, her main problem was disregarding the Midwest. This was a deviation from what every other Democrat had done before her, including her husband. She barely campaigned in any of them (didn't even go to Wisconsin once IIRC). She abandoned the traditional Democrat message, which has been specially formulated to appeal to the Midwest. They love labor and order up there, yet whenever the opportunity arose to address those, she took the side against them. Reports are that Bill Clinton tried to get her to change because he could see there was a big problem with her dismissal of the Midwest. Could be true reports or could be him trying to save face after such shocking failure in the Midwest on election night.

    She almost never campaigned and ran a national campaign instead of an electoral one. She believed hack pollsters and hack advisers regarding polls. The message she probably got from the poll analysis was that she didn't need to do much of anything because she was many points ahead. They never bothered to question the methodology of the polls and other relevant measurements.
    If you can play the "everything he does is a masterful stroke of genius in a game of 3D chess" then I'm going to go ahead and point out that the same can apply to losers if we accept that real life is not chess, with the whole board being visible, but closer to poker with a fog of war-- with uncertainty in the mix everything becomes probabilistic, and through this lens it's possible to interpret Hilary's play at a national campaign as opposed to an electoral one as a roll of the dice, with a low, but higher than otherwise, probability of going bust, but a greatly increased chance of hitting it big with a mandate via a popular vote landslide victory. Without a mandate and a high likelihood of a republican congress, she would have been a side lined president, much like Obama for most of his presidency, but less popular, and with no argument to justify the full use of executive powers.


    **my brain is in a fog of war.. I've been looking on these run on sentences for 10 minutes and can't rearrange them to concisely convey my thoughts OT, but if anyone wants to give it a go, I'd love to see an edit
    Last edited by boost; 07-22-2017 at 11:53 AM.
  29. #6704
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I meant correctly.
    She did a million things correctly. I'm not sure I understand your question because the vast majority of what campaigning politicians do is correct as far as we can tell. What stands out is when they do things incorrect, or correct where the norm was incorrect.
  30. #6705
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    If you can play the "everything he does is a masterful stroke of genius in a game of 3D chess" then I'm going to go ahead and point out that the same can apply to losers if we accept that real life is not chess, with the whole board being visible, but closer to poker with a fog of war-- with uncertainty in the mix everything becomes probabilistic, and through this lens it's possible to interpret Hilary's play at a national campaign as opposed to an electoral one as a roll of the dice, with a low, but higher than otherwise, probability of going bust, but a greatly increased chance of hitting it big with a mandate via a popular vote landslide victory. Without a mandate and a high likelihood of a republican congress, she would have been a side lined president, much like Obama for most of his presidency, but less popular, and with no argument to justify the full use of executive powers.


    **my brain is in a fog of war.. I've been looking on these run on sentences for 10 minutes and can't rearrange them to concisely convey my thoughts OT, but if anyone wants to give it a go, I'd love to see an edit
    That's probably part of the influence for why to have elements of a national campaign while running. Obama had success with it, but also he had smart advisers and he spent a great deal of time campaigning in the most important states.

    The Democrats got blindsided here. It partly stems from the last 8 years telling themselves that they have an unbreakable blue wall and demographics are destiny. The Greeks would call what Hillary and her camp did hubris. Romney also had hubris in 2012 and was blindsided by it.
  31. #6706
    Was looking over the numbers. A popular Midwestern Democrat could probably beat Trump 2020. Trump won Florida and North Carolina more by gaining votes than by depressing the Democrat vote. But in the Midwest, the story is more about a falloff in Democrat enthusiasm. Granted some of that is that Trump's falloff in Republican enthusiasm in the Midwest was probably higher than elsewhere and the switch from Democrat to Republican was also probably higher. Regardless, a popular Midwest Democrat might be able to take back Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, resulting in defeat of Trump.

    He IS uniquely vulnerable, but the Democrats are also uniquely unprepared, though the Democrats also uniquely have the entirety of mainstream journalism campaigning for them.
  32. #6707
    A new set of blue states is forming for the time being. Colorado is swiftly becoming California. It's one of the only states since the election to see a large increase in net D registrations. Most of the others are moving R. Virginia also appears lost to R's as long as the party embraces a streak of "government isn't the solution to every problem imaginable and unelected intel agencies shouldn't have unlimited power". The bloat of DC and in-migration of its employees to Northern Virginia has totally flipped how the state votes.

    Moral of the story: Democrats don't need Ohio or Florida to win anymore.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-22-2017 at 12:45 PM.
  33. #6708
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That's probably part of the influence for why to have elements of a national campaign while running. Obama had success with it, but also he had smart advisers and he spent a great deal of time campaigning in the most important states.

    The Democrats got blindsided here. It partly stems from the last 8 years telling themselves that they have an unbreakable blue wall and demographics are destiny. The Greeks would call what Hillary and her camp did hubris. Romney also had hubris in 2012 and was blindsided by it.
    You have not addressed any, much less the central point being made. I guess I can chalk that up to my inability to form tight sentences this am :-\

    To be clear, the point I'm making is that you're using results oriented thinking. I don't believe we have enough info to distinguish between a bad play and a good play which got rivered.
  34. #6709
    My analysis is the same as it was before the election. Maybe I didn't post it thoroughly enough on this board for it to be remembered.

    There are sectors of the conservative bubbles that were balls deep in this for months before the election. We were predicting a Trump win in part because we thought Hillary was wrongly taking the polls at face value and disregarding the Midwest.

    My EV prediction wasn't perfect, but it showed the thinking. My conservative version gave him Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and tossup in Michigan. My liberal version was wrong, giving him Colorado and Virginia and some other states.

    I don't know if this addresses your point. It's because I (and some prominent Trump supporters) did not get blindsided and predicted Trump would win partly based on the examples expressed here that I don't view my statements about the Midwest and the polls as results oriented or as Hillary getting rivered. If you disagree with that, please let me know.
  35. #6710
    Yeah, no, I don't think you can know what you claim to know and had known.

    That's not to say there isn't value in prediction, and that the results aligning with your predictions is meaningless-- however, with the available dataset I think the knowledge offered is far more limited than you think.

    A common retort to "she won the popular vote" is "right, she beat him at the game he wasn't playing-- he beat her at the game that matters" This is true, but again, it goes both ways. Your analysis of her loss assigns a goal set that you can't know she held as her goal set and there's reasons to believe her goal set was much narrower. If it was that narrow goal set, if her goal was to both win the electoral college, and to win the popular vote with a landslide, her play could have been optimal. And it is not hard to argue that anything less than achieving this combined goal would not have been a victory for her at all.
    Last edited by boost; 07-22-2017 at 04:58 PM.
  36. #6711
    You're making smart points. Points I'm not sure were at the forefront of her team.
  37. #6712
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You're making smart points. Points I'm not sure were at the forefront of her team.
    Again, if I can borrow a play from your book: It's important that her image is not that of a master manipulator. On the contrary, that is a central selling point for Trump. So if she is playing the game well, it would only make sense that you and, probably more importantly, her supporters don't see her and her team as being players on that level.

    This why I was saying I think you may be forming conclusions based on confirmation bias. If we acknowledge that there is this higher level game potentially being played, and we acknowledge that it's a game of incomplete information, we can make a strong case for either candidate, despite results, having played at an expert level without major blunder.
  38. #6713
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Again, if I can borrow a play from your book: It's important that her image is not that of a master manipulator. On the contrary, that is a central selling point for Trump. So if she is playing the game well, it would only make sense that you and, probably more importantly, her supporters don't see her and her team as being players on that level.

    This why I was saying I think you may be forming conclusions based on confirmation bias. If we acknowledge that there is this higher level game potentially being played, and we acknowledge that it's a game of incomplete information, we can make a strong case for either candidate, despite results, having played at an expert level without major blunder.
    That could be the case. There is certainly confirmation bias on my part (as there is for everybody). Example: I think she was a drunk (probably still is). Do I know she is a drunk? No. But I saw enough circumstantial evidence and reports to satisfy me. So, when she spent little time campaigning, one of my explanations is "of course, you don't campaign when you're already celebrating the victory with champagne."
  39. #6714
    kid rock leading stabenow by 4 points already. lolpocalypse
  40. #6715
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    kid rock leading stabenow by 4 points already. lolpocalypse
    Whether or not we disagree on most topics, I'm nevertheless glad that we both can have a laugh at the absurdity of the End Times.
  41. #6716
    Fun fact: Because he's running, I've deliberately listened to a few Kid Rock songs for the first time in my life.

    Funner fact: I used to think Kid Rock looks/sounds like half a retard. I still think this.

    Funnest fact: Kid Rock is gonna win, and he's gonna win bigly, folks.
  42. #6717
    If Trump gets impeached, dies, or otherwise is incapable of running next term--
    2020 tickets:

    Republican: Rock, Nugent

    Democratic: Rock, Cold

    Indpendent: Kelly, Simpson
  43. #6718
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    If Trump gets impeached, dies, or otherwise is incapable of running next term--
    2020 tickets:

    Republican: Rock, Nugent

    Democratic: Rock, Cold

    Indpendent: Kelly, Simpson


    Why do I feel like a game of rock/paper/scissors now?
  44. #6719
  45. #6720
    There certainly is a dumb echo chamber of Trump supporters. That is one reason why I don't think the Trump movement is a revolution. Political factions are still cordoning off into echo chambers while each believes they are the only faction that is not an echo chamber.
  46. #6721
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There certainly is a dumb echo chamber of Trump supporters. That is one reason why I don't think the Trump movement is a revolution. Political factions are still cordoning off into echo chambers while each believes they are the only faction that is not an echo chamber.
    OMG CAN I HUG YOU?
  47. #6722
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    And how exactly are Obama and Clinton supporters any different?
  48. #6723
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,753
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And how exactly are Obama and Clinton supporters any different?
    Obama/Clinton supporters be all "yeah they're evil, so what? I'm evil. Now give me your first born or die."
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #6724
    So Trump said....

    "I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den,"
    As a resident of New Hampshire, I am shocked, outraged, and completely speechless at how the President of the United States can say something that is so brazenly false......

    .......He didn't win New Hampshire.
  50. #6725
    This is some of the best fan fiction ever written:

    https://ageofshitlords.com/4chan-fre...ed-baron-trump
  51. #6726
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So Trump said....



    As a resident of New Hampshire, I am shocked, outraged, and completely speechless at how the President of the United States can say something that is so brazenly false......

    .......He didn't win New Hampshire.
    If people get up in arms over that, mission accomplished. Keeps them from paying attention to what he's actually doing and makes them look stupid since he did win New Hampshire. In the primaries.
  52. #6727
    I'll be honest I considered the possibility of the time machine hypothesis being true for a couple seconds when I first heard it.
  53. #6728
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If people get up in arms over that, mission accomplished. Keeps them from paying attention to what he's actually doing and makes them look stupid since he did win New Hampshire. In the primaries.
    So you're all against government but when that involves the government being shady it's a good thing?
  54. #6729
    Government monopolizing law with few limits and one of the heads of government's public statements are not in the same ballpark.
  55. #6730
    Regarding what you're saying is shady, that's the media-Democrat complex's faults. Trump hasn't hidden anything he has done (at least not anymore than is standard). Yet he has gotten the media-Democrat complex to chase the cheese in the maze every day instead of paying attention to what he's actually doing. Pretty much the only places I have found detailing what Trump has been doing are not coincidentally the places that know the tactic he uses to counter the media-Democrat complex.

    He's ripping them apart before their own eyes and they won't admit it since doing so runs up against the cognitive dissonance created by the fact that they believe at their core that he is a very stupid, very very stupid person, and if they admit what he's doing to them, it would mean that instead they are the ones who for nearly a year have been very stupid.
  56. #6731
  57. #6732
  58. #6733
  59. #6734
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,725
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    The shitposting thread is ------>>> way
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  60. #6735
    OH shit I forgot there is a shitposting thread. lol

    thx
  61. #6736
    i think i quit using it because the redcoats used it to talk cricket or some other blowsy rubbish
  62. #6737
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    i think i quit using it because the redcoats used it to talk cricket or some other blowsy rubbish
    This just made me check as I wanted to talk about cricket, not on the last two pages at least.

    On which note, what a good 3-1 series win over SA, still lots of problems to sort out in the side though. Moeen is a cracking player. Sadly Lancs look likely to end their game as a draw in the CC after getting a good lead due to shitty weather.
  63. #6738
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,753
    Location
    England
    We need to find three players by the time the series in Australia comes along. If we can do it, we've got a great chance of stuffing them. As things stand, I think it's finely balanced. They probably edge it with home advantage.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #6739
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,725
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Basher: That poxy demo crew haven't used a coaxial feed to batten the main line, have they? Instead they've gone and nosed up the backup grid, nosed it right up!
    Reuben: [to Livingston] Do you understand any of this?
    Livingston: I'll explain later.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  65. #6740
    for fucks sake
  66. #6741
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    for fucks sake
    You'd really like cricket.
  67. #6742
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You'd really like cricket.
    Trust me, he wouldn't.
  68. #6743
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Basher: That poxy demo crew haven't used a coaxial feed to batten the main line, have they? Instead they've gone and nosed up the backup grid, nosed it right up!
    Reuben: [to Livingston] Do you understand any of this?
    Livingston: I'll explain later.
    Anyone who hooks up their stereo this way deserves to blow a woofer.
  69. #6744
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Trust me, he wouldn't.
    If 1970s Michael Caine did the color commentary, then we're talking.

    Other than that, the only sports I'm into are combat sports, and even those are losing their appeal on account of I don't like seeing the brain trauma.
  70. #6745
    did i just call cricket a sport? i guess that means im taking the piss.
  71. #6746
    I'm excited about the potential that the Korean War may finally come to an end soon (ish). Hopefully it won't require military action, but it may.
  72. #6747
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-09-2017 at 01:17 AM.
  73. #6748
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If 1970s Michael Caine did the color commentary, then we're talking.

    Other than that, the only sports I'm into are combat sports, and even those are losing their appeal on account of I don't like seeing the brain trauma.
    Cricket easily has the best commentary team and pundits of any sports I can think of, had TMS (test match special, basically cricket radio) on during the SA series, lovely.


  74. #6749
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,725
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    I HATE CNN

    That said, here goes, they put up the full interview with all context

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  75. #6750
    Ugh... I think his press conference is terrible for the country, and likely for him too. However, I hate that we can't talk about these things with nuance. Of course he's terrible at talking about nuanced issues, so that didn't help, but the idea that the counter protestors are blameless should be seen as inane on its face. Was it a good time to make this point, with the sole fatality on the one side? Probably not. I hate the tone he uses, I hate how terrible he is at conveying the point, but I also hate the idea that there's no nuance in where the blame lies.

    In both World Wars Germany is fairly portrayed as the aggressor, and the majority of the blame rightfully should be put on them-- however, the allies were very much complicit in fomenting the atmosphere that ultimate led to war. Claiming to be the heroic victim is a cop out. That's not to say that there is a reasonable alternative, but that is to say that when you make your choices, you should not be shocked when reality plays out along predictable paths. We know that counter protesting has led to violent clashes with the far right, so if we aren't looking for violent clashes, what exactly have we done differently when organizing subsequent counter protests?

    Like, if you don't want to denounce the "punch a nazi" meme, but you want to be treated like 1960's civil rights marchers, then you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All content
©  2003 - 2017
FlopTurnRiver.com
Testimonials  |   Terms & Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   FTR News & Press  

FTR is your home for Texas Holdem Strategy, Poker Forum, Poker Tools & Poker Videos
https://www.flopturnriver.com/copyscape.gif
DMCA.com
This is not a gambling website.