*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

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!).

[BananaStand]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

[Poopadoop]

How come basic mathematical logic eludes you so easily??

I know right? It's amazing I teach stats at a graduate level.

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

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.

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.

[Savy]

The fact you teach stats at a graduate level just goes to show why there is such poor use of statistics in academia.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Savy]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Savy]

What can I say, I'm a monster.

[Poopadoop]

What can I say, I'm a monster.

No, you're just a twat.

[wufwugy]

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?

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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 %.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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/

[Poopadoop]

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.

[wufwugy]

Yes close to the election the national polls weren't bad. Some states had polling off by a lot.

[BananaStand]

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.

[a500lbgorilla]

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.

[wufwugy]

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?

[wufwugy]

I'm totally not into Melania. Just sayin'

[spoonitnow]

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.

[spoonitnow]

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.

[wufwugy]

Tiffany's the best of the whole clan.

[Savy]

They're both worse than a wank.

[spoonitnow]

My kind of chick.

[wufwugy]

she's extra hot because she looks half retarded.

the half retards are the best.

[Savy]

she's extra hot because she looks half retarded.

the half retards are the best.

half?

[Savy]

edit - Is the fact I've spoken to spoon recently without anti-virus enough to pass on this disease of double posting?

[Savy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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

[Savy]

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.

[wufwugy]

the government should regulate you

[Poopadoop]

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.

[spoonitnow]

half?

Basically every girl looks retarded with no makeup and with her hair all fucked up.

[BananaStand]

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"

[wufwugy]

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

[spoonitnow]

The record-high for the Dow Jones has been set so many fucking times in 2017 that it's ridiculous.

MAGA as fuck

[spoonitnow]

Don't forget that Trump survived an assassination attempt by an illegal immigrant during the election.

[wufwugy]

[spoonitnow]

lol

[wufwugy]

[spoonitnow]

I just saved that to my computer so that I could post it to Facebook.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...y-clinton.html

Sometimes I wish that hypocrisy was actually a fatal medical condition.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A story about a bunch of melodramatic simpletons is all I read.
What's the hypocrisy?

[BananaStand]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Jack Sawyer]

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 ...

[wufwugy]

Why is listening to blowhards more enticing than listening to people with credibility?

[Jack Sawyer]

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

[wufwugy]

Yes, that blowhard: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ion-night-2016

[wufwugy]

It is well known among those of us who remember what economics textbooks teach that Krugman has curb stomped his doctorate down the toilet.

[BananaStand]

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"

[spoonitnow]

Trump wins the popular vote and the election in 2020.

[Savy]

Trump wins the popular vote and the election in 2020.

Why would he put the effort into winning both when only one matters.

[Poopadoop]

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.

At crunch time though...

Crunch time may come before 2020 if Mueller gets his job done in time.

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[BananaStand]

Rasumussen has Trump's approval rating at 46% today.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.