Jump to content

ndawg

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ndawg

  1. The damage he has done to the Republican Party is permanent.
  2. Trump runs Team R. You are trying to sound as if you would be willing to put Team R ahead of Trump, but in reality, you're just admitting that you'll willingly follow wherever he leads you.
  3. At this point any conservative pretending their point of view stems from some set of principles that should be evenly and fairly applied should just be laughed out of the room. Rational discourse? Nope, not only do you not deserve it, you were never really capable of it to begin with.
  4. "Pontification on moral theology" <-- is there a better example of idiot trying to sound smart? I can't think of one.
  5. Careful there, cowboy, selective enforcement of drug laws helps disenfranchise minorities that would completely vote against you on most issues.
  6. Starting a new thread titled "Killing the Decline of Badass AF Politicians That We Want To Be Speaker Threads" would be the next logical step.
  7. What is happening with all this reasonable and insightful discussion. Where is the constant strife and barrage of bad takes?
  8. Everyone knows that Eisenhauer warned us about the military industrial complex. What most don't know is that later on that night, he drunkenly coined the term "military intelligence industrial infrastructure," which oddly enough never stuck.
  9. He sounds like he's suffered from a stroke or something, slurring his words.
  10. She's obviously got actual feelings and a conscience... which makes her support of the POTUS even less excusable. Trump is a narcissistic psychotic shitbag. There's no hope or possibility of redemption for people like that. They don't have consciences, they don't feel remorse, so your only hope is to marginalize them and keep them out of positions of power. For Sanders to have gotten in this deep with Trump required her to compartmentalize and rationalize an incredible amount of evil and harm. She's exactly the kind of person that is a key ingredient to actually putting assholes like Trump into power. She took her sense of humanity and stuffed it in a dark corner of her mind so that she could be a willing tool of a despot.
  11. Again, though, why hasn't Trump fired Sessions. I mean, I can see the dubious legality raising furrowed brows, but we're way past the point where Trump gets to make up his own rules and everyone else gets to rationalize it.
  12. This is cringey. The OP is so bad at spewing anti-lib propaganda that I kind of feel bad for his ineptitude.
  13. I totally thought it was real until this sentence: I realized there was no way they're actually letting the QBs take hits. Of course, I didn't yet know if it was Burton making shit up, or a parody...
  14. Remember that we're only evaluating the models against one single prediction (the election itself). Because we now know that the election was very close, we also know that either candidate probably had a reasonably strong chance at winning. That means that for the 98% model to be accurate, voter turnout on election day would have had to have been an astoundingly improbable statistical aberration -- as in, likely tens or hundreds of thousands of voters would have had to have behaved differently than the data would have suggested. On the other hand, the prediction of a 75% chance of victory is also a prediction of a fairly close race. So, 538's model was more consistent with the results, by far. As far as when that transition would occur, I'm not sure that can be known. We'd need to be training these statistical models against far more predictions. My only point here is that not all the predictions were off base, and the talking point that all the predictions were wrong is a lie. 538 didn't predict that Hillary would win, they predicted she had a 75% chance at winning.
  15. Can you set aside your biases in order to consider this objectively? I believe you completely misunderstood the analogy.
  16. Your bias directly caused you to misunderstand the substance of my post. It might be the case that Trump had a 99% chance of winning. Or a 1% chance of winning. What matters is that the outcome cannot disprove any statistical prediction, but we can assess the extent to which the outcome and the prediction jive with one another. Guess what? Winning with a 25% of victory is extremely unsurprising.
  17. I suppose if I argue that the 1980 Soviet hockey team was objectively better than ours, and that our victory was actually a miracle, I'm just a butthurt commie or something.
  18. I believe Fivethirtyeight made an electoral vote prediction. Either way, it doesn't matter. @slorch either lacks the understanding of probability needed to recognize my point, or else he's so biased towards the narrative that liberals still aren't over Hillary losing that he flat out won't recognize it.
  19. Huh? That's an absurd conclusion to leap to, isn't it? I'm talking about the soundness of a prediction that has to account for a high amount of variability. Imagine someone just won the lottery. If someone else predicted, before the ticket was purchased, that the person playing the lottery was extremely unlikely to win it, they would have also made a sound prediction.
  20. I believe fivethirtyeight.com predicted that HRC had about a 75% chance of winning. Based on how close the electoral race was, and HRC winning the popular vote, the actual outcome suggests their prediction was accurate. I can't believe how many people I've had to explain that to over the last year and a half. Now, I do recall that some news outlet predicted HRC had a 98% chance of winning. That was some bullshit. Anyways, carry on...
  21. It is like an ocean of stupid, and I fear the rational among us will all die of exhaustion trying to boil it.
  22. I about lost my mind 30 seconds in to it. Holy shit, it's that bad.
  23. As I said, after thinking about it more, simply labeling people who are not verified and are likely to be non-Americans might strike a better balance. I think there's a pretty reasonable case for at least a discussion on regulation. Social media is a brand new medium, and there are vulnerability vectors here that can't be addressed. It's understandable to believe that the truth can ultimately win on its own merit, without intervention. That idealism is a powerful comfort for those who'd prefer the simplicity of a hard-line, absolutist stance, but to me it doesn't seem realistic.
  24. Right, if someone wants to post anonymously, there is no problem. Also, if they don't claim to be Americans, no big deal. The problem here is paying people to pretend to be someone on the other side of the world's metaphorical neighbor. I'm imagining that anyone who pretends to be a citizen of our country but probably isn't (based on IP or VPN usage) could be labelled or distinguished with a warning that they may not be who they say they are. Verifying obviously removes the doubt.
×
×
  • Create New...