Shryke

Members
  • Content count

    45,013
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shryke

  • Rank
    The Wood of the Morning

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada -> Montreal/Toronto
  • Interests
    Games: Video, Sport and Board.

    Also, Women.

Previous Fields

  • Name
    David

Recent Profile Visitors

13,836 profile views
  1. Welcome to the world of the right-wing online. It even elected a president this year. And it's all insane lies.
  2. US Politics: The Transition Continues

    A big part of why GWB won reelection is that 9/11 happened, which instantly turned him from an idiot-man child joke to the President everyone rallied behind. And while he used that power to do stupid shit like invade Iraq, it didn't become obvious how bad that ended up being till after 2004.
  3. US Politics: The Transition Continues

    They support Trump. What, did you think this wasn't what his support looked like? "Working class whites from the heartland" baby.
  4. US Politics: The Transition Continues

    At first I thought I got sniped but I think this might actually be a different neo-nazi gathering from this one: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/ All related to the Orwellian named "National Policy Institute".
  5. US Politics: The Transition Continues

    She supported Sanders because she saw it as a fast track to power, since she jumped on board around the peak of Sanders-mania in the primary. She was supported by Sanders fans because she backed Sanders and nothing more. They didn't know anything about her.
  6. US Politics: The Transition Continues

    The problem is, they likely didn't. More likely they lost their job to automation and advances in industrial manufacturing in most of the places people have been going on about since the election. It's the same kind of thing you see where all these "thur takin' er jerbs" people come from areas without immigrants. That articles Ormond posted above does nail one thing clearly which is that these people vote for the guy with the better story, even if that story isn't accurate.
  7. Video Games: Thread Simulator 2016

    I'm really thinking D4 is on the way and the reason for the big nothing is that we were gonna get an expansion pack and then that fell apart or became D4 or something. Possibly because with a new game they can figure out a way to monetise it long-term easier and better. But then either the expansion pack is delayed and then scrapped or D4 gets delayed or something and so they've got nothing to show us at Blizzcon except a few leftovers for D3 they will push out before moving on to D4. That's just my crazy theory anyway.
  8. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    But is that actually the reason Trump won? That's my whole point. We don't know yet. That Trump won and 538 had his chances at winning as the highest does not demonstrate that 538 was correct because it doesn't demonstrate that Silver was right about WHY he had a better chance at winning. We will have to see as data from the election rolls in. He's guaranteed to have an interesting analysis on it all.
  9. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    Please. He's probably angry and despondent as shit right now. The party and movement he helped rebuild, the movement he's been saying for a few months now he was gonna work to rebuild at the state and local level after the election after he left office, just suffered a crushing defeat that will last for years and at the hands of a man who rose to political prominence literally by hurling racism at him. A man who's administration will likely undo everything of his they can. America just spit in Obama's face. There is basically no chance he is pleased or feeling in good shape right now.
  10. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    But these people didn't turn out for Trump either. That's the whole point. So, like, what are you even on about? Like, it's pretty nonsensical to make the original claim from this argument that Clinton lost voters who voted for Obama by positioning herself as being Obama 2.0. It's clearly not the fact that she's not a change from Obama that's the problem here cause those people liked Obama and voted for him so they should like that she and he are both explicitly calling her Obama again. But it appears like they didn't come out for her. Which suggests it's more to do with her not being him then her being just more of the same. They liked more of the same in 2012 and approval ratings suggest they like it now.
  11. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    If their sole concern is reelection, then you are gonna have to explain how passing a GOP legislative agenda is gonna impact that for GOP congresspeople elected by GOP voters. They were already show-repealing the ACA on a fucking weekly basis to bump up their reelection credentials. Now there's nothing to stop that kind of shit from not being a show vote. And let's face it, the challenge most of them are worried about is the primary challenge from the right. The problem with your whole argument here is you haven't explained why the GOP would be worried about electoral consequences for enacting their agenda. They were elected to push that agenda in the first place. At best you are gonna get squabbles over where the titanium tax doesn't go too far enough between members of the GOP. But they agree on more then enough shit to get some work done.
  12. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    I don't think it because you have yet to demonstrate that it is so. Or, honestly, to make any argument for that case beyond just asserting it to be true. They came out for him in 2012 too though, long after any claim that he had fooled them should have come off. If you are claiming they liked Obama the man over Clinton, that's my whole point. That the Obama coalition and the numbers it generated were built on a specific candidate and not a platform. The entire Clinton campaign, the entire Democratic party campaign this cycle, was built around taking this new coalition Obama had crafted and turning it out again by having the same policies and alot of the same faces telling people to vote. That they didn't come out to the same degree suggests that the coalition, to the degree it came out for Obama anyway, is not gonna come out for just for the policies.
  13. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    It's not really obvious at all. I mean, it's obvious PEC was wrong about the shape of the election, but that does not entail it's obvious 538 was either. Like, to illustrate I could have said after the primaries "Who the fuck knows who will win?" and created an election forecast model that was literally just 50/50 Trump/Clinton. By your measure I would have been more correct even then Silver and had the better model. But obviously that's not so because my model here is literally nothing. It's just assigning arbitrary percentages to each end case and calling it a day. Deciding based on who had a higher percentage for a Trump win fundamentally mistakes how these models work or what they mean. Fundamentally if I said there was a 10% chance Trump would win based on my assumptions, how do we know this isn't just the 10% case. You can roll snake-eyes sometimes, it happens. And we've only got 1 trial to go with here, so it's actually incredibly difficult to judge the accuracy of any model based on just that. What you would need to do is look at the inner workings of the model, the assumptions being made, and try and figure out if they were right or not and why or why not. The only thing obvious here is that most of these models or the polling they were based on were wrong about this election and how the voter turnout would look. It's not yet obvious if 538's assumptions were any more correct then anyone else's though.
  14. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    They are repudiating him, not claiming he is illegitimate. But hey, you keep fucking that chicken.
  15. US Elections: Day dawns on Trump.

    No? I mean, I know you want to think that but that's because you see everything as fitting into the narrative you've already decided on. "The sun rose today, changing the night sky from dark to light, so obviously people wanted to break with the establishment!" What it actually suggests is that without Obama at the top of the ticket, those demographics don't turn out as hard for the Democratic party. That the extent of the percentages Obama was pulling were based on the man himself and that absent his presence at the top, the Democrats can't count on those groups turning out to that degree. If this was really about this silly narrative you are pushing, then why did those people turn out for Obama and not Clinton when both have very similar policies, Clinton was endorsed and campaigned for by Obama and Clinton positioned herself as a continuation of Obama? Clinton literally said "I'm more Obama!". Why does this group that voted for Obama suddenly not want to vote for the person Obama himself is saying is more Obama? Your argument is incoherent dude.