Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About DMC

  • Rank
    Pithy Witticism

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,506 profile views
  1. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    I agree with this on the...I guess I'll call it "Trump" level. But there is plenty of well-founded research that stipulates racial resentment can be activated by external forces, and subsequently, significantly impact changes in voting behavior.
  2. DMC

    Professional Wrestling: Smark I

    That's fair.
  3. DMC

    Professional Wrestling: Smark I

    Yeah he clearly went to the Triple H school of roiding up while on injury break.
  4. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    To be fair to the Never-Trumpers, they are absolutely right that Trump is not ideologically conservative. Beyond racism and hatred (which is of course intertwined with the following), the only consistent political attitudes he's expressed is anti-immigration and anti-free trade. The former is conservative, but the latter isn't. In his seminal work, Converse defined ideology by constraint, which means specific attitudes are guided by an overarching clear set of beliefs. If you believe Trump is a demagogue and sociopath - which I and most here assumedly do - then it's difficult to argue he's a "conservative." Obviously, he's simply capitalized on the ugliest and increasingly extremist elements of the far right.
  5. DMC

    Laws That Keep Me From Drinking

    Yeah growing up in New York I was gobsmacked when I moved out of state at 18 and saw wine and liquor for sale in supermarkets. Pennsylvania (where I live now) has a similar law to NY. While it took awhile, the establishment clause has been incorporated since the 40s, so, um, no. That being said, there are plenty of laws - including dry counties - that are a direct result of evangelist teetotalers. My favorite is that Moore Country, the home of Jack Daniels, is a dry county.
  6. Sure you're right, but there was something to that effect mentioned and it was new to me. Also, I'd expect that to be funny as hell - for an episode. But I'd think afterwards you can't really go to that well anymore.
  7. Agreed. Or at least, she can act in a Marvel movie just fine. Don't think I've seen her in anything else.
  8. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    Yeah if only he'd have abided trickle down life boats would have saved thousands of lives.
  9. I haven't watched in years but I noticed in the press release for the upcoming season it's mentioned (paraphrasing) "Mac comes to terms with his sexuality." And apparently Charlie and the Waitress are legit together now? In both cases, seems to me that ruins the whole schtick.
  10. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    Well, Jack Dawson was clearly a commie. He even convinced Rose to redistribute the Heart of the Ocean.
  11. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    You're right, we do have opposite impressions of that article (and what it presented). I think that vox piece is fundamentally wrong in depicting the media as being unable to determine the credibility of the accusations. No, the media has been unable to confirm the credibility of a video, but last time I checked video evidence was not required to confirm credibility. To directly answer your question, I think the accusations are credible because Ellison confirms a relationship - which in turn confirms the credibility of those texts that while cropped are plainly damning if only based on his cursory and casual responses to serious accusations. I know for sure that would not be my response if a woman was just making shit up - especially if I was in the midst of a political career. Further, the fact there was a previous accuser is not a good look politically, regardless of the dubious details in that case as well. Anyway, this is certainly different than the Ansari case because there are physical assault charges being leveled (I can't recall if there were in Franco's case).
  12. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    That a repercussions argument - which I of course agree with. My argument was about our involvement in regime change infringing upon another state's sovereignty. In that regard, Afghanistan in the 80s is not comparable to the above.
  13. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    While as I've repeatedly stated judicial "originalism" is bullshit justification and an ideological fig leaf, it is decidedly against originalist dogma to "reinterpret" amendments. It would be exceedingly problematic in terms of that one big amendment the right holds so dear (as well as, in Thomas' case, the 10th, which he frequently cites). Like Scot, I'd put good money on Roberts voting down anything of the sort - and I suspect both Thomas and Gorsuch would as well, perhaps even Alito. The only sure yay vote in such a case would be Kavanaugh. Even in the current climate, it's not reconcilable to simultaneously hold a "plain text" ethos and overturn the first sentence of the 22nd:
  14. DMC

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    So Keith Ellison won his primary race for Minnesota AG in spite of the (credible) abuse allegations. Glad he'll be out of Congress, but there should be pressure from both sides for him to suspend his campaign (not sure what the Dems would do). Minnesota hasn't had a Republican AG since 1955. The next step for the Dems is to strip him of his vice chair position at the DNC. That should happen soon. First, there won't be 33 GOP governors for long. There are four (IL, ME, MI, NM) easy pickups for Dems this cycle, and another 8 GOP seats (6 open) that are very much up for grabs. Second, as Scot said, Article 1 Section 3 states state legislatures chose Senators before the seventeenth - there's 31 states in which the GOP holds both chambers (again, for now). Ultimately, it's entirely unclear if reverting Senate selection back to the legislatures would be more of an advantage than the GOP already has in the Senate with popular elections. The effort and capital expended on abolishing the 17th would be pretty damn stupid considering the uncertain and very marginal gains. Of course, the fact that doing something would be very stupid does not preclude the GOP from trying it. While I love Charlie WIlson's War, I don't think us weaponizing the Mujahideen then abandoning them financially compares to the coup in Iran nor the dog wagging at Gulf of Tonkin. Nor Guatemala, nor Chile, nor Nicaragua...
  15. Yeah man, I'm saying your post was nonsensical in terms of, first, the extrapolation of a random sampling of ~1000 likely voters is to the ~135 million adults that vote in a presidential cycle - so, not 100 million. That's just rounding, so whatever, but then you say - "Here you have effectively a poll which asks of order 100 million people and extrapolates to around 200 million." It's entirely unclear what this means. Then to top it off, you mention a few "systematic effects" for no apparent reason and have a grand finale with "many of these work in opposite directions and it would be very, very surprising if there is a large overall deviation." Opposite direction to what? You haven't even established what direction these effects are supposed to have in the first place. Then, it apparently would be very surprising if there was a large deviation to....something, I suppose. The post gives no indication of what exactly you're referring to, or, like I said, utter nonsense. You're just throwing out "extrapolation" and "systematic differences" without specifying - at all - what the hell you're talking about. Which in my experience usually means you don't really know what the hell you're talking about. And there's absolutely no reason to repeatedly say "of order." You can just say the 1000 sample is extrapolated to the 135 likely million voters.