US Elections - From Russia with Love

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

There is a statistically insignificant chance that in four years this country will not exist due to something Trump does in office.

that's pure fear mongering and hyperbole.

We have different estimates then.

Hopefully, we'll never find out which of us is right. Though with probability it's almost impossible to tell. Was Nate Silver wrong when he said Trump only had a 5% chance of getting the nomination? Maybe this world was the "natural one."

[Ormond]

Nate Silver is working with past data sets in situations which are similar enough to the future event that he can make accurate statistical predictions. (Though he himself has said he was not paying enough attention to the real data when he made that particular statement, so he probably was "wrong' there.)

I think Donald Trump as President would not be similar enough to any past situation that one could scientifically extrapolate the chances of "the country not existing" after four years. (One would also need to operationally define "not existing" here.)

I do not think in scientific terms that it is possible to make a mathematical estimate of the chances here, so "statistical significance" is simply impossible to determine. 

[Swordfish]

29 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

"Jokes" like this, which are predicated on heterosexism and outmoded views of dominance and submission in normal sexual acts, are really unfortunate. I'm disappointed that Colbert thinks this kind of stuff is funny. 

Heh....  Well played.

[Swordfish]

11 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Nate Silver is working with past data sets in situations which are similar enough to the future event that he can make accurate statistical predictions. (Though he himself has said he was not paying enough attention to the real data when he made that particular statement, so he probably was "wrong' there.)

I think Donald Trump as President would not be similar enough to any past situation that one could scientifically extrapolate the chances of "the country not existing" after four years. (One would also need to operationally define "not existing" here.)

I do not think in scientific terms that it is possible to make a mathematical estimate of the chances here, so "statistical significance" is simply impossible to determine. 

A fair enough criticism.  I'll concede that it's likely impossible to calculate mathematically.

But the underlying point remains.  There is plenty of influence being peddled through fear on both sides of the aisle.  The left is just a little more subtle about it, and of course, the left is the side of the aisle who is 'outraged' that people are being driven by fear.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

A fair enough criticism.  I'll concede that it's likely impossible to calculate mathematically.

But the underlying point remains.  There is plenty of influence being peddled through fear on both sides of the aisle.  The left is just a little more subtle about it, and of course, the left is the side of the aisle who is 'outraged' that people are being driven by fear.

Not all fears are equal.  

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Not all fears are equal.  

I agree.

I would say, for example, that the fear of an illegal immigrant sneaking into the country and carrying out an act of terror is a lot more likely than there being no country to hold an election in four years.

 

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

I agree.

I would say, for example, that the fear of an illegal immigrant sneaking into the country and carrying out an act of terror is a lot more likely than there being no country to hold an election in four years.

The likelihood may be greater, but the magnitude would be much smaller. No terrorist act committed by an illegal immigrant would functionally end the country, or the current governing structures and norms of the country, or however it is we're defining this right now. 

In some situations, we should fear the more likely event over the more damaging event (e.g. fear a car crash more than an airplane crash), but in other situations we should fear the more damaging event over the more likely event (e.g. fear getting the flu more than getting the common cold).

I don't think we have the appropriate data to make the calculation in this case, which means there's no argument that people are being irrational if they choose either one to fear more.

[Inigima]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Guys, we don't need to speculate about this.  Reagan was, and remains, quite popular among a lot of Americans,

Nobody is disputing that. That wasn't the question on the table.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Nobody is disputing that. That wasn't the question on the table.

Fair enough.

[Kalbear]

Trump ending the US electorate system is a very remote possibility. It is in line with his goals and ideals, but it's unlikely. Here are things that are likely:

• It is likely that he'd end the EPA.
• It is likely that he would say that he wouldn't support NATO if the Baltic states were invaded, which would encourage adventurism with Russia.
• It is likely that he would attempt to destroy ACA, and cost at least 18 million people insurance.
• It is likely that he would attempt to deport 11 million people.
• It is likely that he would nominate at least 2 supreme court justices who are strongly anti-abortion rights
• It is somewhat likely that he would end all campaign finance laws (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)
• it is somewhat  likely that he would significantly lower taxes on the rich (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)

Those are all things that he can either do with the power of executive order or do with the help of a friendly congress. And most of those terrify me. 

[Kalbear]

Wow.

Okay, per this guy, Russia has been financing an army of online  trolls to be pro-Trump. 

This world is amazing and horrible in a Bruce Sterling way. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

When we're looking at Reagan's favorability, are we analyzing the real Reagan or the fictional Reagan the right likes to push? 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

When we're looking at Reagan's favorability, are we analyzing the real Reagan or the fictional Reagan the right likes to push? 

Doesn't really matter, to tell the truth. Fictional Kennedy is super popular.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump ending the US electorate system is a very remote possibility. It is in line with his goals and ideals, but it's unlikely. Here are things that are likely:

• It is likely that he'd end the EPA.
• It is likely that he would say that he wouldn't support NATO if the Baltic states were invaded, which would encourage adventurism with Russia.
• It is likely that he would attempt to destroy ACA, and cost at least 18 million people insurance.
• It is likely that he would attempt to deport 11 million people.
• It is likely that he would nominate at least 2 supreme court justices who are strongly anti-abortion rights
• It is somewhat likely that he would end all campaign finance laws (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)
• it is somewhat  likely that he would significantly lower taxes on the rich (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)

Those are all things that he can either do with the power of executive order or do with the help of a friendly congress. And most of those terrify me. 

He doesn't just want to deport 11 million people Kal (and in his own words he thinks it's closer to 30 million people who are living here illegally), he also has stated that he would deport people's U.S. born children too. 

[DanteGabriel]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump ending the US electorate system is a very remote possibility. It is in line with his goals and ideals, but it's unlikely. Here are things that are likely:

• It is likely that he'd end the EPA.
• It is likely that he would say that he wouldn't support NATO if the Baltic states were invaded, which would encourage adventurism with Russia.
• It is likely that he would attempt to destroy ACA, and cost at least 18 million people insurance.
• It is likely that he would attempt to deport 11 million people.
• It is likely that he would nominate at least 2 supreme court justices who are strongly anti-abortion rights
• It is somewhat likely that he would end all campaign finance laws (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)
• it is somewhat  likely that he would significantly lower taxes on the rich (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)

Those are all things that he can either do with the power of executive order or do with the help of a friendly congress. And most of those terrify me. 

Don't forget the plans to make it easier to fire career (as opposed to politically appointed) civil service employees and to allow people to serve simultaneously in government and in the private sector.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10003A

It may not reduce the country to rubble or lead to a Red Dawn style invasion, but I do regard these as pretty fundamental threats to the country.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Doesn't really matter, to tell the truth. Fictional Kennedy is super popular.

It was just a joke, though I don't think the mythos of Kennedy is comparable to Reagan's. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

He doesn't just want to deport 11 million people Kal (and in his own words he thinks it's closer to 30 million people who are living here illegally), he also has stated that he would deport people's U.S. born children too. 

Well, that I find less likely. There is no reasonable way that I could expect congress to go along with any kind of deportation of any US citizen on any ground, and it's also rife with issues such as...where would they go? Who is taking these people that have been unpatriated? 

It's some bluster to talk about with Gingrich and Trump that so absurdly, obviously violates the 1st amendment and the rules of citizenship that it would be immediately stopped as an executive order and would never be voted into law. But yeah, it's scary.

Another scary thing I had forgotten. Trump and Christie want to make it so that people can be fired for their political views in our government. This destroys a massive cornerstone of the US system. And there is almost nothing that can be done to stop it if he's elected. (yeah, @DanteGabriel, I had forgotten about that)

[DanteGabriel]

A friend of mine recently reminded us that the internment of Japanese Americans happened with an executive order. He wouldn't need to go through Congress to have entire minority populations rounded up and put in camps.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, that I find less likely. There is no reasonable way that I could expect congress to go along with any kind of deportation of any US citizen on any ground, and it's also rife with issues such as...where would they go? Who is taking these people that have been unpatriated? 

It's some bluster to talk about with Gingrich and Trump that so absurdly, obviously violates the 1st amendment and the rules of citizenship that it would be immediately stopped as an executive order and would never be voted into law. But yeah, it's scary.

 

That said, it's scary that he would even suggest it. I think it could be the most provocative thing he's said, and he's said a lot of troubling things over the course of his campaign. Idk how it could actually happen, but I have no faith that the other Republican leaders would stand up against him with any force or conviction. 

ETA: Misread Kal's post.

Also, how does deportation work with regards to the other country? Do they have to accept the people we would hypothetically send them? 

[Kalbear]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

A friend of mine recently reminded us that the internment of Japanese Americans happened with an executive order. He wouldn't need to go through Congress to have entire minority populations rounded up and put in camps.

Maybe. While this is true, they have since made this act specifically illegal, and as a friend of @Mandy's pointed out you can rescind executive orders via laws. 

But others would test things.