Jump to content

U.S. Politics: We're Saying Merry Christmas, Again


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'd say as far as the interests of his base goes, it should be near the top. This is "wrap myself in the flag guy". How does this jibe with that image?

But his base doesn't give a fuck.  They do not reside in reality.  That's who he is speaking to.  The people who will vote for him over and over and over again no matter if he's asking them to escort their neighbors to the gas chambers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

If you come across this on Twitter, I can't see how you can defend it. Are all these Gold Star parents lying? It's crazy to me to even try to defend this. Almost as crazy as telling the lie in the first place. 

I've seen it in real time. They don't try to defend it, they just say something about Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, it's a been a while since I posted here, but I saw this fivethirty egiht article and was wondering if any lawyers could comment:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/

It's about the gerrymandering in Wisconsin case initially, but it's also about general anti-intellectualism regarding empircal and statistical methods in the Supreme Court and legal profession in general.

It's obvious that it's mostly partisanship that will determine the gerrymandering case, but even Stephen Breyer expressed skepticism:

Quote

“I think the hard issue in this case is are there standards manageable by a court, not by some group of social science political ex … you know, computer experts? I understand that, and I am quite sympathetic to that.”

And John Roberts famously called it "sociological gobblygook"

What's astounding to me is that the people drawing districts are clearly using sophisticated empirical models. If the Supreme Court is generally dismissive of using less sophisticated methods to monitor what legislators do, then that means legislators could essentially run rings around any SC decision.

What the solution? Do we need lawyers to be better at math? Or maybe assign each Justice a team of statisticians or data scientists in addition to their current staffs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But his base doesn't give a fuck.  They do not reside in reality.  That's who he is speaking to.  The people who will vote for him over and over and over again no matter if he's asking them to escort their neighbors to the gas chambers.  

Trouble has come to River City, my friends. Everybody is talking about it. All the best people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Trouble has come to River City, my friends. Everybody is talking about it. All the best people.  

But what are they doing about it?  

Talking about it is meaningless when his base and even his party have proven they won't do a single thing to actually discipline Trump.  Trump suffers zero consequences for his actions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I've seen it in real time. They don't try to defend it, they just say something about Obama or Hillary Clinton.

These types of statements just underline for me that the guy just doesn't understand what it means to be an adult human being. Like he gets half of it right when he says "this is one of the hardest things I have to do" when he's talking about making these calls. Yes! I can totally relate to that. It would be a soul-crushing task, and none of us envy you it. Then he goes on to deflect as a teenager would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Hey guys, it's a been a while since I posted here, but I saw this fivethirty egiht article and was wondering if any lawyers could comment:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/

It's about the gerrymandering in Wisconsin case initially, but it's also about general anti-intellectualism regarding empircal and statistical methods in the Supreme Court and legal profession in general.

It's obvious that it's mostly partisanship that will determine the gerrymandering case, but even Stephen Breyer expressed skepticism:

And John Roberts famously called it "sociological gobblygook"

What's astounding to me is that the people drawing districts are clearly using sophisticated empirical models. If the Supreme Court is generally dismissive of using less sophisticated methods to monitor what legislators do, then that means legislators could essentially run rings around any SC decision.

What the solution? Do we need lawyers to be better at math? Or maybe assign each Justice a team of statisticians or data scientists in addition to their current staffs?

 

Look, there are all kinds of jokes about lawyers and math (I'm a lawyer, I'm good with numbers, but I'm a tax lawyer, so maybe unsurprising?).  The easiest A I got in law school was "Corporate Finance for Lawyers" (don't judge - it was my last semester third year, I needed credits and was also taking Partnership Tax, Crim Pro and something else relatively hard).  The first lesson was, no joke, how to use a calculator.  And there have been plenty of instances when my colleagues have brought the tax team "math type stuff" just because it's "complicated" even if it has nothing to do with tax.  So on one hand, I get it. 

On the other hand, it is the Supreme Court's job to (i) interpret the Constitution, (ii) interpret federal laws (almost always where there is a split among the Circuits (usually on big questions)) and (iii) resolve disputes among the states (they do some other stuff too).  Although empirical and statistical analysis can show an inequity in the result of a law, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law itself is invalid or unconstitutional (and, in fact, the law might be intended to create the inequity in question). So to me, the question is whether the legal standard in question should be interpreted by reference to a statistical or empirical model.  That is, I understand a reluctance to infer intent and impropriety from an empirical model rather than the actions of a particular actor (e.g., it is theoretically possible to get to a result that appears inequitable in retrospect through innocent means that are not unconstitutional).  So, basically, I think fivethirty eight is showing a bit of its bias towards the efficacy and efficiency of big data and statistical models (all true on some level in the real world).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the beginning I was of the belief that this was all a money making scam for Trump. Well, it looks like it isn’t working:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/17/news/trump-billionaires-forbes-richest-americans/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

On the other hand, it is the Supreme Court's job to (i) interpret the Constitution, (ii) interpret federal laws (almost always where there is a split among the Circuits (usually on big questions)) and (iii) resolve disputes among the states (they do some other stuff too).  Although empirical and statistical analysis can show an inequity in the result of a law, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law itself is invalid or unconstitutional (and, in fact, the law might be intended to create the inequity in question). So to me, the question is whether the legal standard in question should be interpreted by reference to a statistical or empirical model.  That is, I understand a reluctance to infer intent and impropriety from an empirical model rather than the actions of a particular actor (e.g., it is theoretically possible to get to a result that appears inequitable in retrospect through innocent means that are not unconstitutional).  So, basically, I think fivethirty eight is showing a bit of its bias towards the efficacy and efficiency of big data and statistical models (all true on some level in the real world).  

That's a good point, but the Courts are still ok with simpler empirical analyses, right?

Like Reynolds v Sims established "One (person), one vote". It's not supposed to be exact (in fact it would be impossible to make exact), but if it turned out that one legislative district had 3 times as many people living in it than another, then some district court would intervene, right? And they'd be operating off of empirical analysis, albeit a very simple one.

Or a more common case: disparate impact. You don't have to show intent -just inequitable results, and you show inequitable results through statistical analysis.

I understand that the gerrymandering is a bit dicier, since there's an open question of constitutional law.. Now I could understand, though I'd disagree, if the Justices' argument were along the lines of, "Sure this is clearly unfair, but there's unfairness built into the Constitution (like the structure of the Senate), and so we can't do anything about it."

But instead they seem to be questioning the very fact that it's unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

From the beginning I was of the belief that this was all a money making scam for Trump. Well, it looks like it isn’t working:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/17/news/trump-billionaires-forbes-richest-americans/index.html

Have you seen You've Been Trumped? Really good documentary on the misadventures surrounding that Scottish Golf Resort deal. It was up on You Tube, but it looks like they have it behind a paywall now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

Short answer: because they can only pick from the set of choices that they're constrained to. Remember, the Democrats not only did their best to bury Sanders, they actually helped Trump in the primary because this was believed to make the general election a foregone conclusion. The idea was to do what the French did with Macron, but whereas the French establishment did it right, the American establishment did it so poorly that the people called their bluff.

When you play poker you only call someone else's bluff if you don't have a damn shitty hand yourself.

But we come back to "cultural values" which is no doubt what @The Anti-Targ described as "moral interests."

Now it's fine if people want to vote for political candidates mainly based on such things. But if they don't think twice about what the candidates' position on economics means they only have themselves to blame for the consequences.

A different way to put it is that there's a price to pay for being certain of having the "right" to keep that gun under your bed or for making sure your neighbor's teenage daughter can't get easy access to an abortion.

So ok, I understand the original point made by @Michael Seswatha Jordan  that not all Trump supporters are racists. It just doesn't change that much on my sympathy-o-meter. So they're fine conservative people who can't bring themselves to vote for someone who's in favor of gun control or abortion? People who won't or can't be bothered to vote in terms of economic self-interest?

Nope, still can't feel sorry for them. At some point, if you really feel "ignored" perhaps you can take just a little bit of time to wonder who exactly has been ignoring you and who hasn't. It's not that hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

That's a good point, but the Courts are still ok with simpler empirical analyses, right?

Like Reynolds v Sims established "One (person), one vote". It's not supposed to be exact (in fact it would be impossible to make exact), but if it turned out that one legislative district had 3 times as many people living in it than another, then some district court would intervene, right? And they'd be operating off of empirical analysis, albeit a very simple one.

Or a more common case: disparate impact. You don't have to show intent -just inequitable results, and you show inequitable results through statistical analysis.

I understand that the gerrymandering is a bit dicier, since there's an open question of constitutional law.. Now I could understand, though I'd disagree, if the Justices' argument were along the lines of, "Sure this is clearly unfair, but there's unfairness built into the Constitution (like the structure of the Senate), and so we can't do anything about it."

But instead they seem to be questioning the very fact that it's unfair.

That's right and I think there is a first order question as to whether the empirical analysis is reasonably related to the purpose of the provision in question.  There is also a different discussion (leaving aside what the empirical analysis says) of what "fair" means in this context, or put differently, what is constitutionally required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is from the UK and about a former British nazi, this is important for some here to see. 

This reminds me of Milo Y, a gay man that has jewish heritage, but he hangs out with nazis like Richard Spencer. Gay people can be nazis, and there are jews that can be nazis. Milo Y is very much a nazi, and just because Milo is gay, jewish and is married to a black man doesn't mean he is not a racist and nor does it mean is not a nazi, or at the very least a nazi sympathizer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fez said:

Thad Cochran is now indefinitely staying in Mississippi after originally being scheduled to return to DC this week. In some sense it seems that Trump was right about Cochran, he's probably much sicker than originally reported; even if he's not actually in the hospital.

Cochran came back to DC this afternoon, after just announcing yesterday that he would be staying in Mississippi. I think there was a second 'no' vote besides Paul and McConnell needed him, always a loyal 'yes', to be here for when the budget comes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

While this is from the UK and about a former British nazi, this is important for some here to see. 

This reminds me of Milo Y, a gay man that has jewish heritage, but he hangs out with nazis like Richard Spencer. Gay people can be nazis, and there are jews that can be nazis. Milo Y is very much a nazi, and just because Milo is gay, jewish and is married to a black man doesn't mean he is not a racist and nor does it mean is not a nazi, or at the very least a nazi sympathizer. 

I watched this earlier today but chickened out of posting it. At the risk of making myself very unpopular, I would suggest that unobvious marginalised groups are disproportionately represented in far right groups, for the simple reason that inability to be who they are leads to insecurity and rage. Shit, you just need to look at the original Nazis to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may have some answer with Alex Jones behavior:

http://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-infowars-supplements-tainted-lead-687019

Quote

Jones may be just the latest in a long line of snake oil salesmen in American history, a carnival barker with magic tonic to sell. His ingenuity lies in combining anti-government conspiracy theory with a robust supplement-selling operation. The Infowars store—“a one-stop shop for the modern conspiracy theorist,” as Charlie Warzel of BuzzFeed once called it—is sort of like the Vitamin Shoppe remodeled by someone who, well, listens a little too closely to Alex Jones. You can find Wake Up America! Coffee (“Patriot Blend”) for the decidedly non-populist price of $17.95 per pound and organic frankincense oil ($19.95), whose “warm and spicy smell” is sure to fend off the New World Order.

But not all of Jones’s offerings are quite as harmless as essential oils or arabica beans. In fact, new research commissioned by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has determined that two products sold by Jones contain potentially dangerous levels of the heavy metal lead, which is universally known to be harmful to the body.

“The chemical was found in the Infowars Caveman Paleo Formula and the Info Wars Myco-ZX supplements. People who take the daily recommended dose of the Formula product would ingest more than twice the daily limit for lead under California law. People who take the Myco-ZX product would ingest more than six times the daily limit for lead under California law,” a CEH release said.

Caveman Paleo Formula is a “bone broth drink mix” that “harnesses the power of ancient supernutrients with cutting edge nutraceutical science.” It contains bee pollen and turmeric root.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...