**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Look at you all.

I don't like what he's saying I wish I could turn him off I wish he would just go away waa waa.

Doesn't anyone remember when he first turned up? I didn't like him either. Then I realised he's just aggressive in tone, but actually if you can look past it there is substance. You don't have to agree with him, you just have to filter out the shite and find the substance, and debate it.

In the recent case, it really was as simple as replacing the word wizard with shrink.

You guys seem to think that debate is better when it's a circle jerk of people agreeing with each other. It's not, and I'm glad that's not what goes on here. It would be if banana fucked off.

Stop complaining about what other people post. waa waa.

[OngBonga]

Yeah unfortunately that's all you've got, because you know, deep down, that I'm right. You just don't want to lose face by saying "yeah ong you're right if banana fucked off things would get boring" or "you know what ong thanks for making me realise we're drifitng from the debate and instead arguing about utter bollocks".

I'm trying to help matters, to make people realise this constant dick waving is getting tiresome, but you just see it as me buddying up to banana. Sadly that's the result of identity policits indoctrination and brainwashing... you're either with us or against us.

[BananaStand]

Sadly that's the result of identity policits indoctrination and brainwashing... you're either with us or against us.

Astute

[Poopadoop]

Yeah unfortunately that's all you've got, because you know, deep down, that I'm right. You just don't want to lose face by saying "yeah ong you're right if banana fucked off things would get boring" or "you know what ong thanks for making me realise we're drifitng from the debate and instead arguing about utter bollocks".

I'm trying to help matters, to make people realise this constant dick waving is getting tiresome, but you just see it as me buddying up to banana. Sadly that's the result of identity policits indoctrination and brainwashing... you're either with us or against us.

lol you get crazier all the time. Identity politics lol.

When was the last time me and Wuf agreed on anything? 2013? Yet somehow we don't resort to poo-flinging and getting all toxic and douchey over our 'identity politics'.

You're happy with poo-flinging as a mode of discourse. Good for you. We're not.

And now you waste time complaining about the idea that we waste time complaining. Fukcing hell do you realise how dumb that sounds?

[BananaStand]

Fukcing hell do you realise how dumb that sounds?

This tone is so toxic to the community man. Better be careful or MMM might get pissy

[Poopadoop]

This tone is so toxic to the community man. Better be careful or MMM might get pissy

No it's allowed because Ong says he's fine with being subjected to a toxic douchebag, as we all should be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@ong: I'm not griping. FYI, spoon can badger me all day and I will respect his ideas.
Nanners can disrespect me all day and night, and I don't care one bit.
Do you see that?

This is about self-respect, yes, but more than that. It's about wanting to be better - wanting to always improve as a man - wanting to know about perspectives I do not know and to learn to see the truth in something I didn't expect.

It's about not having time for people who don't share that common goal.

***
FWIW, this isn't me being childish. Me being childish would be to simply ban him because I want to.

[wufwugy]

Your argument is that, in PA, something besides Trump being president changed between 2016 and 2017 that resulted in the D swing. That's got nothing to do with heteroscedascity. Even if it were possible for one predictor and one outcome varaible to result in heteroscedascity (it isn't),

Do there need to be two+ input variables for heteroskedasticity to arise? For example, if the regression is income = age, the variation in income over the range of age doesn't result in heteroskedasticity, yet if the regression is income = age + gender, then the variation in income over the range of age does result in heteroskedasticity?

My response to your argument is that explanation only works in PA, it can't explain the other five data points.

That's fine. I'm not trying to opine on the other ones. I shouldn't have quoted them.

[wufwugy]

I'm holding the simplest, one variable explanation as my model.

In a way I'm using a simple, one variable explanation as my model too (regarding PA, the only one I've opined on).

That model is that the D ran as an (effective) R (he really did, pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc.), so change in vote from R to D in this instance doesn't tell us much about what would happen in a hypothetical future election when the D runs as an effective D.

[wufwugy]

Doesn't anyone remember when he first turned up? I didn't like him either. Then I realised he's just aggressive in tone, but actually if you can look past it there is substance. You don't have to agree with him, you just have to filter out the shite and find the substance, and debate it.

There is certainly truth here. However, BananaStand certainly does make some logical mistakes then doubles down when called on them. Of course, we all do that. And sometimes the logical mistakes he is called on aren't, and sometimes they are.

[wufwugy]

When was the last time me and Wuf agreed on anything? 2013?

yeah you don't even like big tits.

[wufwugy]

Pulling from Taleb:

Never argue with someone with the aim of changing his or her mind; focus instead on changing the much less invested minds of the audience.

[Poopadoop]

Do there need to be two+ input variables for heteroskedasticity to arise? For example, if the regression is income = age, the variation in income over the range of age doesn't result in heteroskedasticity, yet if the regression is income = age + gender, then the variation in income over the range of age does result in heteroskedasticity?

It's a bit complicated to explain (and a bit early in the morning) and not relevant to the binomial test I did because that's a non-parametric test that doesn't make any assumptions regarding how the variance is distributed. I will try to get back to this later.

[Poopadoop]

In a way I'm using a simple, one variable explanation as my model too (regarding PA, the only one I've opined on).

That model is that the D ran as an (effective) R (he really did, pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc.), so change in vote from R to D in this instance doesn't tell us much about what would happen in a hypothetical future election when the D runs as an effective D.

Then our models are explaining different levels of things.

[Poopadoop]

yeah you don't even like big tits.

haha. I like big tits, but once the tits exceed 50% of the total mass of the woman, I think that's pushing it.

[Poopadoop]

Do there need to be two+ input variables for heteroskedasticity to arise?

Sorry, I was thinking in terms of the analysis I had just done when I said one predictor and one outcome variable can't result in heteroscedascity. What I should have done, to be completely correct, is preface that with 'assuming you treat both variables as dichotomous' as in the case of an 'election being held either in 2016 or 2017', where that predictor variable is dichotomous because it has only one of two values (2016 or 2017), and the outcome variable being dichotomous as in either swing(D) or swing (R).

However, if you wanted to do a t-test, you would be treating the outcome variable as continuous (% swing in either direction). So you would have to jump through certain hoops to fulfill the assumptions of normality, including possibly transforming the data, and you would as a matter of course use a pooled estimate of the variance which generally speaking should adequately address any issues around heteroscedascity.

If you can't be arsed to do that and just want to do a quick back-of-envelope calculation, you would just choose a non-parametric test which has less power but also fewer assumptions to worry about, which is why I did the binomial one. My guess is that the more powerful t-test would have returned a likelihood ratio closer to 1000:1 in favour of the model assuming an increase in D support from 2016 to 2017 in those six election districts. This is because of the generally large effect (mean = 17.7%) closely clustered around the mean. The binomial test ignores the size of the individual values and only considers whether they are positive or negative, so the evidence it gives in this case, while still strong, is not overwhelming.

If you have a lot of experience with numbers, you can also use the interocular trauma test, whereby if the data hits you between the eyes you can glean the existence of an effect without carrying out a formal test. A layperson's version of the interocular trauma test would be to believe that the house next to theirs is closer to them than the moon 365 days a year, without carrying out any formal measurements or doing a statistical test.

For example, if the regression is income = age, the variation in income over the range of age doesn't result in heteroskedasticity, yet if the regression is income = age + gender, then the variation in income over the range of age does result in heteroskedasticity?

Both income and age in the example you give are variables that can have continuous values. If, e.g., you draw a scatterplot of income and age, you'd expect there to be a tight cluster around people 0-1 yrs old having an income of 0, and as age increases, the spread of incomes around age would increase, so that the overall impression would be of a cone-shaped distribution. That would be an example of heteroscedascity, because age would strongly predict income at age 0-1 but not so well at age 50-51 (or whatever). The Pearson correlation coeffecient of that analysis based on a normal distribution would be problematic, and a sensible statistician would not do a Pearson correlation but would do something where normality is not one of the assumptions, known as a non-parametric test, such as a Spearman's rho correlation. Moreover, things would get more complicated if your data included people over 65 who are retired and generally not having a lot of income.

If you added in gender as a coefficient, its interaction with the other variables would be another potential source of violation of normality.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...VYu?li=BBnb7Kz

If you don't think this also happens in America....fuck you

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...e-threats.html

I'll offer 2-1 odds to anyone who wants to bet on Trump

[wufwugy]

Are you saying you will offer me 2 of yours to 1 of mine if I bet that Trump will beat Biden 2020 (if they both run)?

Shit dawg name your price.

[wufwugy]

LOL he actually said this:

once had a doctor release a statement claiming that if elected, “Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."

Fucking hilarious.

[OngBonga]

So this Cambridge Analytica thing... best I can tell, it seems it wasn't the Russians meddling with the American election... it was the British.

[BananaStand]

Are you saying you will offer me 2 of yours to 1 of mine if I bet that Trump will beat Biden 2020 (if they both run)?

Shit dawg name your price.

No, I thought it was obvious from the link that I was talking about a hypothetical fistfight between the two.

Biden would destroy Trump in a bloodbath.

If we're talking elections, I'm with you. I'd lay 5 to 1 odds on a Trump victory even if his opponent were Christ himself.

[BananaStand]

So this Cambridge Analytica thing... best I can tell, it seems it wasn't the Russians meddling with the American election... it was the British.

Best I can tell, no one was meddling with anything. Data mining and targeted advertising don't violate any laws best I can tell.

In fact, if you REALLY wanna laugh your balls off, go find clips of Maxine Waters talking about how BRILLIANT it was for Obama to use Facebook data so effectively in 2012. Then watch a clip of her from this week where she cries foul over Trump doing the exact same thing.

[OngBonga]

Data mining and targeted advertising don't violate any laws best I can tell.

There's a lot more to it than this. At first I was like "yeah whatever, not surprised" but this goes much, much deeper.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/03...-british-coup/

[wufwugy]

No, I thought it was obvious from the link that I was talking about a hypothetical fistfight between the two.

Biden would destroy Trump in a bloodbath.

If we're talking elections, I'm with you. I'd lay 5 to 1 odds on a Trump victory even if his opponent were Christ himself.

Trump ain't threatened by somebody whose chief skill is manhandling little girls.

[boost]

Bone spurs.

[BananaStand]

I can't tell if this is biased and manipulative chicanery, or if the NY Times has actually deluded themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...Zwz?li=BBnb7Kz

They are citing a problem that they created

The only reason anyone cares about Stormy Daniels is because the NY Times decided that it sells more papers than immigration and tax reform. And now they're going to stand back and point at the phenomenon like it happened naturally??

[Poopadoop]

Sounds more like an excuse from someone who knows he's going to get curb-stomped in an election and wants to save himself the embarrassment.

[BananaStand]

Sounds more like an excuse from someone who knows he's going to get curb-stomped in an election and wants to save himself the embarrassment.

If you're talking about the 2018 midterms, you're wrong

If you're talking about a 2020 re-election, you're extra wrong

[Poopadoop]

If you're talking about the 2018 midterms, you're wrong

If you're talking about a 2020 re-election, you're extra wrong

Well you got me there. Airtight reasoning again.

[BananaStand]

Well you got me there. Airtight reasoning again.

Take a look at the poll numbers that you love to jerk off to.

Specifically, look at polls asking people whether they would vote for a generic republican or a generic democrat in the midterms. Then look at those polls over time, and tell me if Republicans should be worried?

Do you agree that if Republicans turn out, they win? If not, you're insane.

I wonder if there are any legislative issues dominating the headlines that might galvanize republican voters....

[Poopadoop]

Please, post some links to these sources your referencing. I'd love to see how you get from 42% to landsliding the midterms.

[BananaStand]

Please, post some links to these sources your referencing. I'd love to see how you get from 42% to landsliding the midterms.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote-6185.html

At New Years, Dems were ahead by 12.9. In less than three months since then, the lead has been cut by more than half to 5.8

For whom is that good news?

Furthermore, if you think Democrats making gun control a top plank in their platform isn't going to drive Republican turnout, then I'm guessing you've accidentally ingested some LSD.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote-6185.html

At New Years, Dems were ahead by 12.9. In less than three months since then, the lead has been cut by more than half to 5.8

For whom is that good news?

Furthermore, if you think Democrats making gun control a top plank in their platform isn't going to drive Republican turnout, then I'm guessing you've accidentally ingested some LSD.

Haha, so you're inferring a trend from those values and assuming it's going to continue right through to November. Well sure, Nostradamus, that's what always happens when the apparent trend is going in the direction you want it to.

Here's some reality for you: you can find a trend in any direction when you measure a variable such as this over time. From July to Dec. '17 the Dem lead went from +7 to +13. How come it's not at +20 now, if the direction of a trend is such a powerful predictor?

"Trends" you find in data like these mean fuck all. Scoring the last field goal in a game doesn't mean you're more likely to win if you're still behind by a touchdown.

[BananaStand]

Haha, so you're inferring a trend from those values and assuming it's going to continue right through to November.

I realize that your caveman cognition can't handle much more than "Ooga booga - line go up - happy time", but I assure you I'm putting a little more thought into it than you're alleging.

I can see that the gap was wide when Republicans failed to reform healthcare, and that it narrowed after legislative victories on tax reform. So I am inferring that the trend is a result of a successfully implemented legislative agenda. I am predicting that success will continue, or at the very least, not reverse into abject failure within the next 7 months. And therefore I am concluding that these poll results should be interpreted as encouraging news by republicans.

[Poopadoop]

I am predicting that success will continue, or at the very least, not reverse into abject failure within the next 7 months. And therefore I am concluding that these poll results should be interpreted as encouraging news by republicans.

Well first your prediction was based on the gun debate; now you've thought up a few more reasons. So I'm glad your expert analysis is so well thought out.

Here's another interpretation of the latest trend: Trump finally kept his mouth shut about something (Daniels) and people have been slowly forgetting what an idiot he usually is in public.

Does your predictive model account for the very high likelihood Trump is going to do something completely idiotic again sometime soon, and likely repeatedly between now and Nov.?

[BananaStand]

Well first your prediction was based on the gun debate; now you've thought up a few more reasons. So I'm glad your expert analysis is so well thought out.

Are you suggesting that there are not multiple issues that affect the outcome of elections? Are you suggesting that I believed elections all hinged on one single issue?

Here's another interpretation of the latest trend: Trump finally kept his mouth shut about something (Daniels) and people have been slowly forgetting what an idiot he usually is in public.

Here's another interpretation of that. The left-wing media doesn't want to talk about legislative success so they have instead tried (sadly) to focus the national narrative on a consensual affair that occurred more than a decade ago.

Does your predictive model account for the very high likelihood Trump is going to do something completely idiotic again sometime soon, and likely repeatedly between now and Nov.?

When you describe Trump's actions as "completely idiotic", that usually means he's doing something right. And I said that I am predicting this success to continue. So yes, this is accounted for in my model.

[Poopadoop]

Are you suggesting that there are not multiple issues that affect the outcome of elections?

Where did I suggest that?

Are you suggesting that I believed elections all hinged on one single issue?

Again, where did I suggest that? I only responded to what you wrote. I don't try to put thoughts in other people's mouths like someone we all know.

Here's another interpretation of that. The left-wing media doesn't want to talk about legislative success so they have instead tried (sadly) to focus the national narrative on a consensual affair that occurred more than a decade ago.

Boo hoo.

When you describe Trump's actions as "completely idiotic", that usually means he's doing something right. And I said that I am predicting this success to continue. So yes, this is accounted for in my model.

Then why is he not ahead by 20 points? Oh I know 'cause the media is focusing on porn stars instead of his 'success'. Sounds like a Trump argument to me: when he wins it's cause he's brilliant, but when he loses it's someone else's fault.

[BananaStand]

Where did I suggest that?

You implied quite clearly that my analysis was not well-thought out because it was not committed to one single political issue.

Then why is he not ahead by 20 points?

Because he's not running in 2018.

Oh I know 'cause the media is focusing on porn stars instead of his 'success'. Sounds like a Trump argument to me: when he wins it's cause he's brilliant, but when he loses it's someone else's fault.

Actually it's because Romney was right. 48% of the country will vote democrat no matter what. If Christ himself came down and anointed Trump as the Messiah, and the next thing Trump did was cure all disease and usher in world peace with a wave of his hand...the best he could hope for is a 52/48 win in 2020.

Trump falls slightly short of divinity, and the numbers reflect that.

[Poopadoop]

You implied quite clearly that my analysis was not well-thought out because it was not committed to one single political issue.

Exactly, because you only referenced one political issue. Should I infer you'd thought the other ones were relevant by the fact you DIDN'T include them?

Because he's not running in 2018.

Ok let me put it another way: If he's so successful, why does he have the lowest approval rating ever of a president 1 year in?

Actually it's because Romney was right. 48% of the country will vote democrat no matter what.

Then maybe he should have stayed a democrat.

[BananaStand]

Should I infer you'd thought the other ones were relevant by the fact you DIDN'T include them?

Yes

Ok let me put it another way: If he's so successful, why does he have the lowest approval rating ever of a president 1 year in?

He's right about where Clinton was in 1996

Then maybe he should have stayed a democrat.

The party changed, not him.

[Poopadoop]

Yes

sorry, reductio ad bananum is your style, not mine.

He's right about where Clinton was in 1996

Then I guess 1992-1996 was a span of one year after Clinton got elected. Good point.

The party changed, not him.

Poor baby.

[BananaStand]

sorry, reductio ad bananum is your style, not mine.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Then I guess 1992-1996 was a span of one year after Clinton got elected. Good point.

Shit, you got me on a typo. I mean to say Trump is right about where Clinton was in 1994.

Poor baby.

wut?? Democrats used to serve the middle class, now they don't. Why does it surprise you that if someone's political leanings embrace policies that serve the middle class, then they may want to change parties?

[Jack Sawyer]

https://www.nytimes.com/video/player...00000005847432

[wufwugy]

Who's got the Democrat juice these days?

[Poopadoop]

If I were the Dems I'd put the most boring old white man I could find against Trump in 2020.

But I'm sure instead they'll find some LGBT pregnant asian woman and lose.

[BananaStand]

If I were the Dems I'd put the most boring old white man I could find against Trump in 2020.

They'll run Bernie. And then in like September of 2020, he'll collapse and die. Then a special counselor will be appointed to investigate Trump's role in the natural death of a 104 year old man, along with any possibility of collusion with Tanzanian assassins.

[OngBonga]

LGBT

NON INCLUSIVE BIGOT ALERT

[wufwugy]

If I were the Dems I'd put the most boring old white man I could find against Trump in 2020.

But I'm sure instead they'll find some LGBT pregnant asian woman and lose.

I completely agree.

They certainly will find somebody who fits their key identities and then try to make voting for him/her/xir about the identity.

[wufwugy]

They'll run Bernie. And then in like September of 2020, he'll collapse and die. Then a special counselor will be appointed to investigate Trump's role in the natural death of a 104 year old man, along with any possibility of collusion with Tanzanian assassins.

I tend to think that Comrade Sanders was acting on his own and that the DNC doesn't even like him.

[CoccoBill]

"The information operatives who worked out of the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg did not stop at posing as American social media users or spreading false information from purported news sources, according to new details. They also created a number of Twitter accounts that posed as sources for Americans' hometown headlines. NPR has reviewed information connected with the investigation and found 48 such accounts. They have names such as @ElPasoTopNews, @MilwaukeeVoice, @CamdenCityNews and @Seattle_Post. "A not-insignificant amount of those had some sort of variation on what appeared to be a homegrown local news site," said Bret Schafer, a social media analyst for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks Russian influence operations and first noticed this trend. Another example: The Internet Research Agency created an account that looks like it is the Chicago Daily News. That newspaper shuttered in 1978. The Internet Research Agency-linked account was created in May 2014, and for years, it just posted local headlines, accumulating some 19,000 followers by July 2016.

Another twist: These accounts apparently never spread misinformation. In fact, they posted real local news, serving as sleeper accounts building trust and readership for some future, unforeseen effort. "They set them up for a reason. And if at any given moment, they wanted to operationalize this network of what seemed to be local American news handles, they can significantly influence the narrative on a breaking news story," Schafer told NPR. "But now instead of just showing up online and flooding it with news sites, they have these accounts with two years of credible history."

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/12/62808...=1531464868095

[Insane_Homer]

I really think Trump will win again on 2020, the polls, the media and the Dems will underestimate him again.. I don't even like the guy

[OngBonga]

I only pretend to like him because it trolls the never-Trumpers.

The truth is I merely dislike him less than Clinton, which is kind of like saying I dislike being punched less than having my balls slowly crushed.

[Poopadoop]

I really think Trump will win again on 2020, the polls, the media and the Dems will underestimate him again.. I don't even like the guy

He's never been popular, and it won't change if he makes it to 2020. If the Dems can put up any half-assed candidate (i.e., not Hillary Mach 2) they will win easily imo.

[Poopadoop]

What will be more interesting is how big of a shit storm Trump will cause if/when he gets the boot (I know Ong thinks he will leave gracefully but loltrolllol).

[BananaStand]

If the Dems can put up any half-assed candidate (i.e., not Hillary Mach 2) they will win easily imo.

[OngBonga]

What will be more interesting is how big of a shit storm Trump will cause if/when he gets the boot (I know Ong thinks he will leave gracefully but loltrolllol).

No, I said I'm not in the business of judging people for what they might or might not do in a given situation. And I also said I don't give a fuck.

Having said that, I expect him to accept defeat if he loses an election fair and square. He's a democrat (by the literal meaning of the word), not some tinpot dictator like you seem to wish he was for some crazy reason.

[Poopadoop]

Haha I'll give you 50:1 he goes down in a tantrum that would impress a 2 year old.

Edit: make that 500:1.

[BananaStand]

Haha I'll give you 50:1 he goes down in a tantrum that would impress a 2 year old.

Edit: make that 500:1.

What odds will you give me on a bet that says he dies during his second term?

[BananaStand]

I've been staring at the front page of CNN's website now for 10 minutes. I've scanned every caption and read every headline on this homepage.

If you were looking at what I'm looking at, you wouldn't even know that there were elections yesterday.

Literally there were primaries and special elections in several states, with massive implications for 2018 and 2020, and CNN is ranting about tariffs. Not even a shred of a word about the GOP slam-dunks across the nation.

And they get pissed when people call them biased.....

[BananaStand]

I really can't get over how shockingly stupid the democrat party has become. The superdelagates were probably the only thing they did right during the election. If the repubs had that, Ted Cruz would be president right now. Think about that Trump-haters!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...g-process.html

This is just opening the door for Alec Baldwin to get the democrat nomination. Good luck with that libtards

[wufwugy]

I didn't view the bstand meltdown. Wha happa?

[oskar]

It started with some sob story about his wife not taking care of his kids and sending him to anger management, and how he thinks he's either becoming gay or going impotent because he can't get hard for chicks anymore. Then he starts posting dick picks asking "does this look hard to you" and we'd have to go "hard as a rock dude," because it sounds like he's about to off himself. And finally he's offering Ong like £1000 if he lets him eat his ass, and that was the last straw.

[wufwugy]

i fucking lold

[wufwugy]

i bet it's all true too. something he'd do

[MadMojoMonkey]

I didn't view the bstand meltdown. Wha happa?

He's obviously an intelligent person, and he contributed more to our discussions than anyone in recent memory, but he wouldn't refrain from directly insulting FTR posters, so he had to go.

There's a wealth of posts from him in any of the political threads, so you can scroll through, say this thread or the MAGA thread and see plenty of what he was about.

[oskar]

I'm not sure wealth is the right word. Sure it can mean 'a large quantity,' but you wouldn't ever talk about a "wealth of manure" or "a wealth of cancer" or "a wealth of the dumbest gish gallop list of autism you have ever seen outside of creationsim.com"

[Poopadoop]

I'm not sure wealth is the right word. Sure it can mean 'a large quantity,' but you wouldn't ever talk about a "wealth of manure" or "a wealth of cancer" or "a wealth of the dumbest gish gallop list of autism you have ever seen outside of creationsim.com"

There was certainly a wealth of 'AARARRRGHGHGH!!'. Maybe that's what he meant.

The guy would write a 1000 word essay with about a dozen arguments, mixed in with a half dozen insults. I'd get through the first argument and realize it was total b.s. and stop reading. My most common reaction to a banana post was scrolling down to the next person.

[Savy]

Half a dozen arguments mixed in with a dozen insults*

I liked him, shame MMM is a nazi.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sure, sure. I meant plethora, not wealth, I guess.

Whatever. He was a jerk; I wont defend his attitude. Given some distance from his recent divorce, though, I suspect he tones down a bit. Also, this is the internet. For all we know, he was mostly venting, here, and doesn't act like that face to face.

E.g. the story about him ditching his date because she said something and he just noped the fuck out of there was pretty telling, IMO. He would have gone ballistic over the same thing if it happened in a post on FTR, but when face to face with that, he just walked away.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Half a dozen arguments mixed in with a dozen insults*

Closer to the mark, IMO.

[Poopadoop]

Amazing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I put 5 minutes in and I'm not impressed. Wanna drop a timestamp on what part is amazing?

[Poopadoop]

I put 5 minutes in and I'm not impressed. Wanna drop a timestamp on what part is amazing?

The whole thing is funny because JLP makes no cogent arguments whatsoever but at random times will say 'amazing'.

And this guy has a radio show. Wtf listens to it I wonder?