Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,286,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Page 4 of 119 FirstFirst ... 234561454104 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 300 of 8873
  1. #226
    Top economist David Henderson on the tax bill

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...houghts_a.html

    He's more sanguine on the bill than I am (though I am moderately sanguine). Which is good since he's much better at economics than I am (blasphemy!).
  2. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I thought Burns' "The Civil War" was amazingly well done. I already knew how WWII went so never felt the need to watch that one, but I might check it out some time.
    There's no video of the civil war, and everyone who was involved is long dead. This documentary on WWII is on another level.

    Calling her that is an insult to Native Americans. ducy?
    No...it isn't. You're dead wrong about this.

    His prison record? But seriously, if the election were held tomorrow and it was her vs Trump I'm guessing she'd win. Bigly
    How???

    She has the same problem all democrats have....no viable policy platform. They can't compete with Republicans on economic growth or national security...you know the stuff that matters.
  3. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post


    No...it isn't. You're dead wrong about this.

    Trust me, I know. The fact that you don't though doesn't surprise me.
  4. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How???

    She has the same problem all democrats have....no viable policy platform. They can't compete with Republicans on economic growth or national security...you know the stuff that matters.
    Based on the fact that no incumbent with an approval rating < 45% has been re-elected,then Trump at 32 or 35% of whatever it is would be an underdog to a dish towel.
  5. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Based on the fact that no incumbent with an approval rating < 45% has been re-elected,then Trump at 32 or 35% of whatever it is would be an underdog to a dish towel.
    How come basic mathematical logic eludes you so easily??

    How is that you can't see that 32% is a hugely bogus number?

    He won with 49-ish percent of the vote. How the fuck could he lose 17% in the first year by doing nothing but delivering on promises and successfully disproving all of the scandalous allegations against him. Obviously that approval figure is fucked.

    Or the other explanation, is that republicans just have split opinions on Trump. Take me for example....the guy wasn't my first choice. I didn't vote for him in the primary. But I would vote for him in the general election over any democrat you can name. I think there are shit tons of people out there who might "disapprove" of the job Trump is doing, but would still vote for him in 2020.
  6. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How come basic mathematical logic eludes you so easily??
    I know right? It's amazing I teach stats at a graduate level.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How is that you can't see that 32% is a hugely bogus number?
    It's actually closer to 35% i think. But, you know that number comes from Gallup, an independent and unbiased source right? It's not like it's a Breitbart or CNN poll.

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/201617/g...-approval.aspx



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He won with 49-ish percent of the vote. How the fuck could he lose 17% in the first year by doing nothing but delivering on promises and successfully disproving all of the scandalous allegations against him. Obviously that approval figure is fucked.
    On that analysis it sure is. The problem is a large section of the public apparently doesn't see things that way.




    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Or the other explanation, is that republicans just have split opinions on Trump. Take me for example....the guy wasn't my first choice. I didn't vote for him in the primary. But I would vote for him in the general election over any democrat you can name. I think there are shit tons of people out there who might "disapprove" of the job Trump is doing, but would still vote for him in 2020.
    So they can hate him but still prefer him to any democrat? Well, that's possible and I wouldn't be shocked if it came true.

    Edit: Any maybe that explains the discrepancy between his approval rating and the number of people who voted for him. Though the former has been trending downwards fairly steadily since he took office.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-22-2017 at 11:08 AM.
  7. #232
    The fact you teach stats at a graduate level just goes to show why there is such poor use of statistics in academia.
  8. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    The fact you teach stats at a graduate level just goes to show why there is such poor use of statistics in academia.
    The fact that you teach children just goes to show how qualified you are to comment.

    Edit: You're too ignorant to know this, but the use of poor statistical practices in science started about 80 years ago with Neyman and Pearson. People like me are trying to correct that error, and have been for years. I first published on it in 2004, while you were just a kid.

    Edit 2: So fuck off.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-22-2017 at 12:01 PM.
  9. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    People like me are trying to correct that error, and have been for years. I first published on it in 2004, while you were just a kid.
    Such a hero, won't be long till you're on the queens honours list

    Congrats on being older than me.
  10. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Such a hero, won't be long till you're on the queens honours list

    Congrats on being older than me.
    It's one kind of person who has nothing useful to add to a conversation and remains quiet; it's quite another kind who has nothing useful to add but sees an opportunity to be a douchebag and capitalizes on it. Doesn't say a lot for your character that you so often place yourself into the latter category.
  11. #236
    What can I say, I'm a monster.
  12. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    What can I say, I'm a monster.
    No, you're just a twat.
  13. #238
    On Trump being a jerk to Native Americans by calling Warren Pocahontas at inappropriate times, GOOD! That's how he persuaded many Warren supporters who didn't give a flying fuck about her falsehoods to actually start calling her out on it.

    On the approval polls, I recall how we discussed how the Trump polls in 2016 were way off. Why are these Trump polls different?
    Last edited by wufwugy; 12-22-2017 at 12:47 PM.
  14. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    On the approval polls, remember how the 2016 polls were way off and I was explaining why they were way off at the time? Do I need to do that again?
    Those polls weren't 'way off', they were a few points off, as in the typical margin of error for any poll. Do I need to explain that again?

    The approval polls would have to be 14% off for the same thing to happen if there were an election today, which is very very unlikely. That of course assumes 'approval' equates to 'would vote for if given a choice between him and D candidate x', which is not necessarily the case.
  15. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    On Trump being a jerk to Native Americans by calling Warren Pocahontas at inappropriate times, GOOD!
    Her status as some or other percentage of Cherokee is a separate issue. My understanding is it's something her family told her and she believed it. Don't think there's anything amoral about that.

    OTOH, I agree she seems to have milked it for whatever political gain it may have given her, and that isn't really proper.

    But calling her by a NA name is an inappropriate way to raise that issue. Better would be to just point out that she's done it. It's like if someone who appeared black but with some vague white roots called themselves white and so a black person called them "Susan B. Anthony" or something. If it's not offensive to whites at the very least it's cringeworthy.
  16. #241
    I'd say you would be right if "approval" was the same thing as "will vote for". Lots of people disapprove yet still vote for.

    Also, it's important to note that reasoning from a statistic can only tell us so much. We have to also ask questions like how it makes sense given what we know about the topic. There is a very strong case to be made, which BStand alluded to, that the approval polls are not capturing any meaningful less-good-feel about Trump. Like we discussed yesterday, most people who voted for him are happy and a chunk who normally vote Republican yet didn't vote for him have warmed up. Personally, I have several friends who did not vote for him because they thought he was an ass, but my read on them is that they are likely to vote for him in 2020.



    On an unserious note, let's do correlations! Reagan passed major tax cuts in his first year and won in every state except Cuckisota and the District of Cuckumbia. That means Trump will gain bunches of votes! Another correlation! Presidents don't lose reelection when the economy is doing very well.
  17. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    But calling her by a NA name is an inappropriate way to raise that issue. Better would be to just point out that she's done it. It's like if someone who appeared black but with some vague white roots called themselves white and so a black person called them "Susan B. Anthony" or something. If it's not offensive to whites at the very least it's cringeworthy.
    If that method was effective I would completely agree with you. Republicans tried very hard to get people to care about her claims to no effect. Enter Trump and being a total jerk. That got people to care.
  18. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'd say you would be right if "approval" was the same thing as "will vote for". Lots of people disapprove yet still vote for.
    Apparently that included Banana in 2016 so there you go.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Also, it's important to note that reasoning from a statistic can only tell us so much. We have to also ask questions like how it makes sense given what we know about the topic. There is a very strong case to be made, which BStand alluded to, that the approval polls are not capturing any meaningful less-good-feel about Trump. Like we discussed yesterday, most people who voted for him are happy and a chunk who normally vote Republican yet didn't vote for him have warmed up. Personally, I have several friends who did not vote for him because they thought he was an ass, but my read on them is that they are likely to vote for him in 2020.
    The statistic doesn't 'make sense' or 'not make sense' except to the subjective observer. Not agreeing with the statistic doesn't change the fact of the statistic itself. If one person thinks his 'real' approval rating must be higher than 35% this has no more meaning than that another person thinks his 'real' approval rating must be lower than 35%.

    The most common problem people have with understanding statistics is appreciating that it's an estimate with various degrees of fuzzy around it. The value of any statistic is a ballpark one and the size of the ballpark is inversely exponentially related to the size of the sample (in simple terms, very small samples result in a very large ballpark, but the ballpark gets smaller as the size of the sample increases). So the world would be better off if all statistics were printed in grey.

    That said, for a statistic of approval rating with > 1k samples to be off by more than a few % would be very very rare occurrence, less than 1/1000. Note also that this poll is updated daily and so larger samples with less uncertainty can be gained by averaging over a number of days (as Gallup does using a 3 day rolling average).

    Another source of error would be a systematic bias in who is being polled, in how they are asked the question, or w/e. This might be the case, e.g. if Trump supporters were more inclined to hang up the phone or lie when they get questioned than were his detractors. There's no way of knowing if this is true or not, but again in the history of polling it would be an unlikely event for such a bias to exist to such a great extent as to make the poll off by more than a few %.
  19. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If that method was effective I would completely agree with you. Republicans tried very hard to get people to care about her claims to no effect. Enter Trump and being a total jerk. That got people to care.
    If that's true, then it becomes a question of whether the ends justify the means. Politically speaking, the value of making this an issue must be weighed against how it makes the person using such a tactic appear.
  20. #245
    Thanks, I like statistics and I agree with all of that.

    The danger is in assuming a statistic is saying something it isn't saying. For example, many people took Clinton's approval rating of high 60s or 70s or whatever it was a year before the primary as evidence of very high vote number she would have during the general election 2 years later. As we know, that didn't happen. It's common for non-election period approval ratings to have low to no prediction power of the coming election.
  21. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If that's true, then it becomes a question of whether the ends justify the means. Politically speaking, the value of making this an issue must be weighed against how it makes the person using such a tactic appear.
    Certainly. Trump does bear a cost for doing it this way.

    Honestly I think it is a bigger cost than he thought it would be. For example, after the primaries there were whispers in Christian conservative circles that the Trump camp was surprised at how impossible it was for him to get Christian conservative support. His camp thought Christian conservatives would rally around him since they always do that when against a Democrat. What they didn't properly adjust for was that Trump personal style upset so many Christian conservatives emotionally that they rationalized ways that they thought him being President would be even worse than one of their most despised people ever (Clinton). It's kinda crazy honestly. I saw this with some people I know personally, and I see it regularly when I got to Christian conservative sites. Some of them, man, they've gotten to the point that they would support blowing up the Sun if Trump was against it.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 12-22-2017 at 01:33 PM.
  22. #247
    He bears a big cost for that stuff. I think he has since been trying to change on that specifically. Been doing tons of prayers in public and stuff. He probably finally realizes it will take WORK to get those Christian conservatives on his side that don't like him.
  23. #248
    As a matter of fact, the 2016 polls were hardly off at all. If you take the last dozen samples from here that included all four candidates, Clinton's average lead was 2.4%. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Not exactly a big difference there.

    Edit: helps if i post the link I'm referring to

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...lls/president/
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-22-2017 at 01:38 PM.
  24. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's common for non-election period approval ratings to have low to no prediction power of the coming election.
    Absolutely. Trying to play Nostradamus with a chaotic system like politics is folly. Lots of things can change between now and 2020.
  25. #250
    Yes close to the election the national polls weren't bad. Some states had polling off by a lot.
  26. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    On an unserious note, let's do correlations! Reagan passed major tax cuts in his first year and won in every state except Cuckisota and the District of Cuckumbia. That means Trump will gain bunches of votes! Another correlation! Presidents don't lose reelection when the economy is doing very well.
    Fun game, but if you look into a little bit deeper, Reagan's tax cuts initially drove the economy down. Down hard! His reelection was an insane long-shot at best around 1982

    It recovered and he was proven right in time for the election. Trump may not be so lucky. Alot of the "recovery" storyline will be communicated by a media that liked Reagan a little bit better than they do Trump.
  27. #252
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Of course. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. Therefore, he shouldn't get any credit. /liberal crybaby logic There is no Islamic Caliphate. They got fucked up, as they should have since they no longer have Obama funding them.
    Keep cheerleading. You can't do much more.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  28. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Fun game, but if you look into a little bit deeper, Reagan's tax cuts initially drove the economy down. Down hard! His reelection was an insane long-shot at best around 1982

    It recovered and he was proven right in time for the election. Trump may not be so lucky. Alot of the "recovery" storyline will be communicated by a media that liked Reagan a little bit better than they do Trump.
    I don't know the history, though I do know to caution the idea that Reagan's cuts drove the economy down. Why do you say that?
  29. #254
    I'm totally not into Melania. Just sayin'
  30. #255
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm totally not into Melania. Just sayin'
    I personally don't think Tiffany gets enough credit. She's got some skank hot going on and seems fun.
  31. #256
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm totally not into Melania. Just sayin'
    I personally don't think Tiffany gets enough credit. She's got some skank hot going on and seems fun.
  32. #257
    Tiffany's the best of the whole clan.
  33. #258
    They're both worse than a wank.
  34. #259
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina


    My kind of chick.
  35. #260
    she's extra hot because she looks half retarded.

    the half retards are the best.
  36. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    she's extra hot because she looks half retarded.

    the half retards are the best.
    half?

  37. #262
    edit - Is the fact I've spoken to spoon recently without anti-virus enough to pass on this disease of double posting?
  38. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    she's extra hot because she looks half retarded.

    the half retards are the best.
    This is definitely a you thing rather than a everyone thing.
  39. #264
    if you look for the worst she has to offer it's like 7/8ths retard.

    but who isn't? other than ur mom ofc
  40. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    if you look for the worst she has to offer it's like 7/8ths retard.

    but who isn't? other than ur mom ofc
    I've (patent pending) got a new method of judging life scenarios.

    The original premise came from is what I'm doing currently better than a hooker and coke. This basically is a great way of judging any purchase in life. If you're going to spend money going on holiday, investing or whatever then is that better than just getting coke and a cheap hooker. Compared to anything bar being longer term investments the answer is basically always no.

    This led me onto the life changing notion of "Is what I'm doing better than just going home and having a wank" and the answer is once again basically always no once you consider the required input.
  41. #266
    the government should regulate you
  42. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    she's extra hot because she looks half retarded.

    the half retards are the best.
    Damn, you must really love Don Jr. and Eric then.
  43. #268
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    half?

    Basically every girl looks retarded with no makeup and with her hair all fucked up.
  44. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't know the history, though I do know to caution the idea that Reagan's cuts drove the economy down. Why do you say that?
    Go on Netflix, and look up "Eighties"
  45. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Go on Netflix, and look up "Eighties"
    I lied (unintentionally). I do know the history. It was a part of my final project for my degree. The focus was not Reagan or fiscal policy, though, so maybe that explains why I thought I didn't know the history.


    Here's the short of it: the recession that began in the middle of 1981 and lasted until near 1983 was not related to Reagan or his tax policy. It was caused by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in an attempt to drive inflation down.
  46. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    the recession that began in the middle of 1981 and lasted until near 1983 was not related to Reagan or his tax policy.
    Doesn't matter. Had it lasted until 1984, people would have blamed Reagan.

    No one talks about how Clinton's dergulation fed the housing bubble. They just remember that the recession of 2008 started during the last five minutes of W's presidency, so ZOMG!!! VOTE DEMOCRAT!!

    In 2018, the media narrative will tie any bad economic news....ANY bad news at all....to this tax bill.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 12-23-2017 at 08:28 PM.
  47. #272
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    The record-high for the Dow Jones has been set so many fucking times in 2017 that it's ridiculous.

    MAGA as fuck
  48. #273
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Don't forget that Trump survived an assassination attempt by an illegal immigrant during the election.
  49. #274
  50. #275
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    lol
  51. #276
  52. #277
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    I just saved that to my computer so that I could post it to Facebook.
  53. #278
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...y-clinton.html

    Sometimes I wish that hypocrisy was actually a fatal medical condition.
  54. #279
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,465
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    A story about a bunch of melodramatic simpletons is all I read.
    What's the hypocrisy?
  55. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    A story about a bunch of melodramatic simpletons is all I read.
    What's the hypocrisy?
    I know I'm quoting only a couple of tweets here, but these seems to sum up the consensus of the backlash..

    Vanity Fair staffers should hope to accomplish 1/100th of what Hillary has in her life. Who are they to make any suggestions?!
    and

    So @VanityFair decided that the best way to end 2017 was to take a repulsive cheap shot at @HillaryClinton, one of the most accomplished women in the history of the United States
    You don't quite see this kind of backlash when it comes to SNL's weekly skewerings of one of the most accomplished men in the history of the United States by people who should hope to accomplish 1/100th of what he has.

    And while there are some melodramatic simpletons on the right who are offended by the liberal leanings that pervade comedy, they are mostly denounced merely as melodramatic simpletons. So denouncing any backlash in defense of Trump while validating any backlash in defense of Hillary, is where the hypocrisy lies.
  56. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    A story about a bunch of melodramatic simpletons is all I read.
    What's the hypocrisy?
    It's so much easier to be outraged if you avoid stuff like logic and just assume the worst in your opponents.
  57. #282
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Top economist David Henderson on the tax bill

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...houghts_a.html

    He's more sanguine on the bill than I am (though I am moderately sanguine). Which is good since he's much better at economics than I am (blasphemy!).
    #MAGA



    Feelin' great yet?

    Now, about that broken clock ...
    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
  58. #283
    Why is listening to blowhards more enticing than listening to people with credibility?
  59. #284
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Why is listening to blowhards more enticing than listening to people with credibility?
    Like this blowhard?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/o...cut-santa.html
    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. #285
  61. #286
    It is well known among those of us who remember what economics textbooks teach that Krugman has curb stomped his doctorate down the toilet.
  62. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Based on the fact that no incumbent with an approval rating < 45% has been re-elected,then Trump at 32 or 35% of whatever it is would be an underdog to a dish towel.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ms-fester.html

    ^Proof that approval ratings mean dog shit.

    You have to understand that the people who take these polls don't follow the news. They know more about which Jenner brat is dating which basketball player than they do about the taxes, education, or healthcare. These approval polls, as proven by Chicago, are really just a measure of how "cool" you are, and have nothing to do with quality of work.

    At crunch time though...Trump will have a record to run on. Democrats will need a message. So far all they've got is "orange face....sexist.....twitter"
  63. #288
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,637
    Location
    North Carolina
    Trump wins the popular vote and the election in 2020.
  64. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Trump wins the popular vote and the election in 2020.
    Why would he put the effort into winning both when only one matters.
  65. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ms-fester.html

    ^Proof that approval ratings mean dog shit.
    Really having problems with definitions lately aren't you?

    If this is proof of anything it's that being opposed to someone who's wildly unpopular is a popular thing to do.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    At crunch time though...
    Crunch time may come before 2020 if Mueller gets his job done in time.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Trump will have a record to run on.
    Right. Suddenly people who are embarrassed every time he opens his mouth and all his bullshit and all the accusations against him will wake up and realize none of that matters because the stock market they have no investments in is high.

    Or are you referring to something else by "his record?" I'm still waiting for someone to explain all the amazing things he's accomplished in the last year. I mean I know he says that he has but that's not really evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Democrats will need a message. So far all they've got is "orange face....sexist.....twitter"
    Assuming Trump is allowed to run in 2020, if the democrats can find anyone halfway respectable, they'll win unless things change a lot between now and then.
  66. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Crunch time may come before 2020 if Mueller gets his job done in time.
    Amazing.

    Scott Adams is totally right. People are watching two different movies on the same screen. The facts don't matter. The only way to tell if the movie you're watching is more accurate is if it is better at getting its predictions right.
  67. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Amazing.

    Scott Adams is totally right. People are watching two different movies on the same screen. The facts don't matter. The only way to tell if the movie you're watching is more accurate is if it is better at getting its predictions right.
    People aren't watching the same screen, or at least not with the same narrator.

    One narration is showing Trump being persecuted unjustly by some shady establishment with shady motives; the other is showing a shady guy and his shady cronies being investigated for a crime. The only thing the two screens have in common is that no-one but the key players know the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The facts don't matter. The only way to tell if the movie you're watching is more accurate is if it is better at getting its predictions right.
    It's not the predictions that matter, it's the explanations. Both movies could predict Trump goes to jail, but how and why he gets there would be based on completely different premises. Similarly, both could predict he gets re-elected in 2020, but would explain it as being for totally different reasons.
  68. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    People aren't watching the same screen, or at least not with the same narrator.
    Yeah I prefer that way of putting just. Just making sure to give Adams his credit.

    One narration is showing Trump being persecuted unjustly by some shady establishment with shady motives; the other is showing a shady guy and his shady cronies being investigated for a crime. The only thing the two screens have in common is that no-one but the key players know the truth.
    Example of one of the screens.

    Really we're just loling at the idea that anybody thinks that somebody hired somebody to take himself down.




    It's not the predictions that matter, it's the explanations. Both movies could predict Trump goes to jail, but how and why he gets there would be based on completely different premises. Similarly, both could predict he gets re-elected in 2020, but would explain it as being for totally different reasons.
    That's the thing, explanations matter if the viewer thinks they matter, at least when it comes to thinks like this, where ramifications aren't felt.
  69. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Really we're just loling at the idea that anybody thinks that somebody hired somebody to take himself down.
    That is a funny story. But hard to reconcile with the facts.

    1. Trump fires Comey, who later accuses him of trying to obstruct justice by asking him to drop his investigation of Flynn.

    2. The DAG hires Mueller. Trump unhappy because Sessions recused himself and handed the authority over to Rosenstein.

    3. Indictments of several of Trump's campaign team and administration (including Flynn) follow.

    4. Several of those indicted get deals in return for testimony.

    ....

    n. Trump either gets fingered or there's not enough evidence.


    This isn't Law and Order, the investigation doesn't get all wrapped up in an hour. 'n' might not come for another year or more, but it will come. It's hard to see Trump coming out of this smelling like anything besides shit really; the only question is how bad the smell will be.
  70. #295
    As long as we remember that it's the predictions that matter.

    I'll go with the one that acknowledges that Mueller's job exists because Trump allows it to exist.
  71. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    As long as we remember that it's the predictions that matter.

    I'll go with the one that acknowledges that Mueller's job exists because Trump allows it to exist.
    Again, that's an explanation not a prediction.

    And are you trying to argue Trump instigated the investigation? Because my understanding is the DAG operates fairly independently and doesn't have to ask his permission to start an investigation.

    Either way, it's not clear what the alternative is for Trump at this stage. Regardless of his innocence or guilt, if he fires Mueller now, he will look guilty which to the public is as bad as being guilty. If he lets things run their course he still has an uncomfortable stink by association, but he can always assert his innocence with much greater conviction than had he quashed the investigation. Doesn't mean he's innocent though.
  72. #297
    That explanation's prediction is that nothing will come of the whole Mueller going after Trump thing.


    My read on this from the beginning was that it will be best for Trump to let it play out. This included predictions that Mueller would uncover stuff that Democrats want hidden and then Democrats would call for his resignation, which has been happening. So far, Trump is as clean as a whistle, which makes sense since he was always in control of Mueller's job.

    My hopeful read, though I'm not sure to what degree I believe it, is that this was a ruse from the beginning to get everybody to focus on Trump while Mueller uncovers crimes of the previous administration. There are some facts that support that idea. Nothing conclusive though.
  73. #298
    Rasumussen has Trump's approval rating at 46% today.
  74. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That explanation's prediction is that nothing will come of the whole Mueller going after Trump thing.
    Well ok, but it only predicts that because it assumes he's innocent and if he were guilty he'd fire Mueller. Neither of those is a given.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    My read on this from the beginning was that it will be best for Trump to let it play out. This included predictions that Mueller would uncover stuff that Democrats want hidden and then Democrats would call for his resignation, which has been happening.
    Which democrats? Name them please.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    So far, Trump is as clean as a whistle, which makes sense since he was always in control of Mueller's job.
    Again, relies on your assumptions above.
  75. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Rasumussen has Trump's approval rating at 46% today.
    Watch Fox News much?

    Seriously though, the Rasm poll is always biased about 8-10% in favour of whatever Republican is the topic of the poll. This is why it gets play on FN and by Trump himself. There are also polls biased in favour of Dems. The trick to getting a reasonable reading is to average all the polls and let the garbage wash out through the law of large numbers.

    The average rating for Trump is now about 39%, so he's gone up a bit yeah.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-29-2017 at 03:39 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •