Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 25, 2016, 04:31:18 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 927
1  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: EURO 2016 Thread on: June 23, 2016, 12:58:46 pm
Some of the sides in the 'weak' half of the draw have played good attacking football. But whatever: I learned years ago that most people talking about sport (any sport) on the internet haven't got a fycking clue what they're talking about.

It is certainly true that teams like Croatia, Wales, Hungary and Belgium have seemed stronger than, say, England.

Then again, in my experience football history tends to reaffirm itself in the knockout stages for some weird reason. I would rather face and of the above teams than Spain, Germany or Italy even when they latter look bad.
2  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: June 23, 2016, 12:48:52 pm
It seems like they kind of have to expose the R+L =J concept this episode, it's been building up for too long.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Truth About Hillary on: June 23, 2016, 04:33:57 am
Just finished reading Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary. It appears to be a well researched chronicle of Hillary's life, and is worth a read. (It was published back in 2005).

Wrapping up the book (in a chapter he entitles "Nixon's Disciple"), Klein writes the following:

Quote
The comparison between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon can be pushed only so far. Whereas Nixon sought power in large part to overcome his low self-esteem, Hillary seeks power because she has unrealistically high self-esteem. With Hillary, we are dealing with a woman whose need for dominance is far more pathological than Nixon's.

What does that say about the kind of president Hillary might make?

A useful framework for evaluating Hillary's temperament as a predictor of her presidential performance is provided by Stanley Renshon, the author of a classic study, The Psychological Assessment of Presidential Candidates.

Ambition, Renshon says, is a form of "healthy narcissism," and the key to achievement. "Some children, however," he points out in a passage that seems especially relevant to Hillary Clinton, "... retain their sense that they are different, special, entitled and ultimately not to be limited by conventional boundaries.

"These are people whose ... ends therefore justify any means. Often this leads to a tendency to cut corners, to be less than forthcoming, to portray things always in the best light (in keeping with their own high views of themselves and their motives) and to be ready to bend the rules when it comes to their convenience. Such persons are vulnerable to getting into legal trouble."

Psychologists aren't the only ones who can provide us with useful clues to the kind of president Hillary would make. There is also the testimony of those who have had the opportunity to see her in action up close and personal.

"My two cents' worth -- and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994 -- is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life," writes Bradford DeLong, deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury during the first Clinton administration. "Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given ....

"Hillary Rodham Clinton," he continues, "has already flopped as a senior administrative official of the executive branch -- the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal President."

Any thoughts?

I believe that much of what Silly American quoted is how most folks, including many folks who will vote for Hillary, come to view her.

Pat Buchanan is certainly a partisan source, but he once rhetorically asked, "When has Hillary ever been RIGHT?".  And it's a good question.  She got it wrong on healthcare, she got it wrong on Iraq, she got it wrong on Wall Street reform and repealing Glass-Steagall.  It's fine to learn from one's mistakes, and I don't penalize a candidate from learning from the past and from experience, but Hillary's always a day late and a buck short on getting it right.  She's turning left now; that tells me that it's probably time to turn toward the center.  Why should anyone think she's any more ahead of the curve now than at any time before in her life.

How did she get it wrong on healthcare?

Not that this is a particularly coherent idea. She was wrong on 3 things so she can't be president?
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Donald Trump already finished? on: June 23, 2016, 03:47:33 am
Of course he isn't. But it certainly looks pretty bad for him.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What caused such a big Trump skill drop-off between the primary and GE? on: June 23, 2016, 03:33:43 am
I think Trump's victory in the primary was a lot less about skill than people think. He got lucky in a bunch of ways and was addressing an electorate that was fine with racism, sexism, lying and general craziness. The general electorate is not as fine with those things.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton & Trump VP news LATEST: Castro, Kaine, and Warren asked to submit info on: June 22, 2016, 05:18:23 am
While Morden is right, I'd just like to highlight that it's incorrect  that Clinton lost the 2008 primary due to being too conservative.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Study: Clinton received most negative media coverage by far in 2008/2016 on: June 22, 2016, 04:33:07 am
Well, perhaps we should remember that Clinton is the only candidate currently under investigation by the FBI. Could media coverage of that little problem of hers be construed as negative coverage? If yes, than yeah, boo hoo hoo, all this negative coverage is obviously only because the media is so against her because she's a woman. Two words:  puh leaz.

Your reading comprehension is bad. You should practice that, come back, reread the title (which is sufficient to understand why your post was sh*t), the post and maybe even click on the link. Then you can try again.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump proclaims self "King of Debt:" All hail the king on: June 22, 2016, 04:04:35 am
You certainly can't pay it down. Dubya's legacy is a disaster, not just in terms of the middle east. Obama made some progress by cutting the annual deficit, but not enough. The total debt has to be renegotiated and at least party relieved. If there's one thing Big Don is good at, then it's negotiations.

Lol. This is actually one of Trump's worst policies because his deluded voters probably don't understand the problem. The man would destroy the US utterly if he had his way.
9  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: June 21, 2016, 07:19:42 am
One thing about "barely" having enough ships to take Dany's entourage to Westeros: Couldn't the ships make two trips if they have to?  Even half of her army would be plenty to at least hold onto some territory in Westeros where they could chill for a while.  Then send the ships back to get the rest.  How long would that take?  A few weeks?


It'd make for poor optics and that's apparently the only thing this show is about now.

I'd note that the whole luring Ramsay into the field thing makes sense but there is literally ZERO reason why Jon knowing about the Vale army would prevent that. You could do the exact same plan but with the Vale knights charging in 5 minutes earlier and have a much improved outcome for Team Stark.

As far as I can see the only reason to not do this was that they wanted a "cavalry arriving scene" for emotional gratification. Fcking morons.
10  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: June 20, 2016, 09:20:38 am
I'm a bit disappointed. Why are all characters so sh*t at what they do all of a sudden?

Jon's fcking charge against the Bolton army is unbelievably dumb and actually immoral. He was taking an action that would kill his men just because he let his emotions control him. Pathetic.

And we're supposed to believe that Littlefinger snuck an entire army of the Vale right up to the gates of Winterfell without anyone in the North noticing? How the hell does that even happen??

And why didn't Sansa tell this to Jon? They could have won the whole battle so much easier with much less loss of life if they had done that. Sigh.

I'm basically in agreement.  The episode looked cool, but the characters acted dumb.  Would have been great if Jon had been able to come up with some creative tactics or something, or if the Wildlings had used some sort of guerilla tactics, rather than just charging straight at the enemy.  But alas, it was not to be.

The real reason Sansa didn't tell Jon was because the writers made it that way so that it made the battle more suspenseful.  In universe, it made no sense.  If she'd told him, then Jon could have just maneuvered his army to some kind of rendezvous with the Vale army, and they could have swooped in and crushed Ramsay.  But the writers had to make it this way so that the battle would start before the Vale forces arrived.

And I'm also disappointed that Roose (earlier in the season) warning Ramsay against earning a reputation as a "mad dog" had no pay off.  No one defected from Ramsay's side.  He only lost because the Vale showed up.


Yeah, exactly. Strong deviation from the book plot and for no discernible reason either. Ugh.

Also, can people please stop walking right up to enemies/strangers as if assassinations never happen? I'm thinking about Greyworm, Tyrion and Daenerys as examples from this episode. Also, is Dany gonna make it a thing to ride a dragon into battle without armour? Ugh.
11  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: June 20, 2016, 08:45:52 am
I'm a bit disappointed. Why are all characters so sh*t at what they do all of a sudden?

Jon's fcking charge against the Bolton army is unbelievably dumb and actually immoral. He was taking an action that would kill his men just because he let his emotions control him. Pathetic.

And we're supposed to believe that Littlefinger snuck an entire army of the Vale right up to the gates of Winterfell without anyone in the North noticing? How the hell does that even happen??

And why didn't Sansa tell this to Jon? They could have won the whole battle so much easier with much less loss of life if they had done that. Sigh.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is it too late for Trump to reverse his crashing poll numbers? on: June 20, 2016, 06:44:35 am
It's not over yet (it's only June) but it's looking bad. These are also 2 fairly known quantities by now (especially Clinton). So it's hard to see her crash and burn the way say Dukakis did.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should this be Trump's official campaign song? on: June 20, 2016, 06:39:46 am
No. I don't remember who here suggested it, but I agree with that person that this is more fitting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no6-vsHgHJg
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trumpís Polls on: June 19, 2016, 01:30:33 pm
I kind of disagree. In primaries there is less and less reliable polling so that approach is a lot less valid. What he did was to look at historical numbers with predictive value - like endorsement points and such. And based on that he was willing to distrust the polls.

Obviously, this was wrong, in hindsight. But I don't think it was as dumb or ludicrous as people make out now.

Not being sure means putting big error bars on predictions, not claiming that one outcome is super likely.

Did you read the article? It cites a fair bit of data in arguing that polls at that stage has weak predictive power. This is undeniably true. It then says:

"So, could Trump win? We confront two stubborn facts: first, that nobody remotely like Trump has won a major-party nomination in the modern era.4 And second, as is always a problem in analysis of presidential campaigns, we donít have all that many data points, so unprecedented events can occur with some regularity. For my money, that adds up to Trumpís chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary. But you probably shouldnít rely solely on the polls to make your case; itís still too soon for that."

I don't see that as being insane, dumb, ridiculous or even particularly wrong. People keep saying that Silver shouldn't have tried to be a pundit, but it seems to me that predicting Trump was a lot about punditry. Primaries don't have a lot of reliable data and what we know of historical data all pointed away from Trump. Making a wrong prediction doesn't make someone an idiot, it's the quality of the analysis leading to the prediction that matters.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton & Trump VP news LATEST: Trump's list: Christie,Gingrich,Sessions,Fallin? on: June 19, 2016, 01:21:13 pm
How is Gingrich agreeable?
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trumpís Polls on: June 19, 2016, 06:30:16 am
I kind of disagree. In primaries there is less and less reliable polling so that approach is a lot less valid. What he did was to look at historical numbers with predictive value - like endorsement points and such. And based on that he was willing to distrust the polls.

Obviously, this was wrong, in hindsight. But I don't think it was as dumb or ludicrous as people make out now.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trumpís Polls on: June 19, 2016, 06:00:54 am
I still think the Silver hate on here is a bit overblown. For example, saying you shouldn't freak out over early primary polls is a correct observation.

Silver's thing was always to look at hard data points and their historical predictive power. He's not a political analyst. And all the things he knew pointed towards Trump not winning. He was wrong and I believe he publicly acknowledged this.
18  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: June 17, 2016, 05:48:15 am
A friend pretty much spoiled the entire ninth episode for me Angry  So sadly, no predictions this week.

Huh? Do you know a screenwriter or something? Tongue
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders to hold video address for supporters on: June 17, 2016, 05:12:44 am
I really hope Sanders' plan isn't to primary all the respected senior Democratic congress members and replace them with leftwing radicals that will lose their seats to the GOP. One would have thought the Tea Party track record would have cautioned against that.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: Who Needs the Party? on: June 17, 2016, 04:40:13 am
Yeah, Trump really is a modern day Eisenhower...
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: VA-PPP: Clinton +3 with and without 3rd parties on: June 16, 2016, 10:12:46 am
Arizona is one of those states where I'd expect Trump to perform relatively well - the whole wall building enterprise should appeal to white voters there. I think McCain's reluctance to attack Trump is also very strongly indicative of this being the case.
22  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: June 16, 2016, 04:36:08 am
Isn't indications that next episode will be all about #bastardbowl, similar to how the Wall battle against the Wildlings was an entire episode in itself? Then they'll wrap up everything else in the last episode.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: No guns for people on the terrorist watch list on: June 16, 2016, 03:48:20 am
A sensible position, but it's unclear who Trump is attempting to appeal to. This will piss off more conservatives than liberals/moderates it will impress.

Trump is unique in several positive ways:

1.  He answers the question asked, even if he's over the top.

2.  He's taking positions that he really thinks are right, even though it doesn't seem that way at times.

3.  He's willing to convince his supporters and potential supporters that he's right about something they disagree on, instead of just shift his position to fit theirs.

This part of Trump is actually refreshing.  I can't imagine Hillary going to the bathroom without running it past a focus group or pollster.

Then why does he flip-flop so much?

Just because the guy is pandering to the worst opinions doesn't mean he's not pandering.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump would host Kim Jong Un in US on: June 16, 2016, 03:11:55 am
I'm assuming Trump would just use this as a pretext to murder him, Red Wedding style.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton speech in Pittsburgh, PA on June 14th on: June 15, 2016, 05:48:01 pm
Your candidate suggested that people on watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Even if they are "law-abiding" citizens. What do you think of that?

Perhaps we need a law which says that people on terror watch lists aren't allowed to buy guns? That would probably be helpful, because people like this are not "law-abiding" citizens.

You're waiting for her plans? She's been talking about her gun plans a lot lately, and she's been talking about her plan for ISIS for the past 8 months. Do I need to direct you to a speech she's made on ISIS or the issues page on her website?

No, clearly her plans involve trying to restrict gun ownership. My problem is that instead of using this tragedy as an opportunity to spell out specifics about what she'd do, she instead finds it more important to bash Trump and tell the American people that they need to be more tolerant and understanding. Sorry, but the garbage in this speech is not worth the time it took to listen to it.

So, if the government, without a trial, decides someone is a threat to them they can take away their weapons. I guess you don't actually care about your precious 2nd amendment all that much after all.

First, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rights granted us in the Constitution are not absolute, and I have never, nor would I ever, say that they are. Although you are correct in saying that I believe those rights to be precious.

Second, if it's proper for the government to say that a person who has psychological problems can't purchase a gun (and I don't think anyone argues against this), why wouldn't it be proper for the government to say that a person who has been placed on a terror watch list can't purchase a gun? Are you saying that rather than defining a new class of people that we don't want to have guns and looking to prevent those folks from obtaining a gun, that you think it would be better to prevent everyone from obtaining a gun? Because (a) that's an overreach, and (b) that's never going to happen.

Third, it sounds like you'd prefer to keep the focus on gun control, rather than on practical things that can be done against terrorists and/or potential terrorists. The sad fact of the matter is that gun controls will not prevent people like this from doing things like this; if you think it can, you should really look again at what happened in France, a country with very tight gun laws. In addition, when our government dismantles tools that would help law enforcement identify and go after terrorists, it should not be surprising when things like this occur. Hopefully you and Hillary can come up with better ways of addressing the problem of Islamic terrorism, because having us stick our head in the sand and blame ourselves, that's simply not working very well.

If you think the government is entitled to just remove guns from people they decide are threats, then you clearly don't think the 2nd amendment idea of the peoples' right to bear arms so as to prevent oppressive government is actually valid. Which is fine, plenty of liberal Democrats would agree with you.

But then what is your argument for why tons of people in the US should have the right to bear arms? Especially automatic rifles and such.

If you do believe, as you say, that gun control can't stop terrorism, then why do you want to prevent people on watch lists from having them?

You seem as incoherent in your ideas as your candidate.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 927


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines