Jump to content

US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?


Lykos

Recommended Posts

Also publishers have contractual clauses that cover this sort of thing, and they have people who vet books that may contain material that is political, legal, etc. with the idea that they don't walk into situations of libel, plagarism and other law suits.

I may despise and distrust Bolton for a bundle of very good reasons, but I also think he's a lot smarter than that.

Hey alt right! wanna talk free speach and censorship?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Also publishers have contractual clauses that cover this sort of thing, and they have people who vet books that may contain material that is political, legal, etc. with the idea that they don't walk into situations of libel, plagarism and other law suits.

I may despise and distrust Bolton for a bundle of very good reasons, but I also think he's a lot smarter than that.

Hey alt right! wanna talk free speach and censorship?

 

They only care about free speech when their rights are implicated.  They’re cool with people they disagree with being under the legal definition of actual censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

It's a delaying tactic. I wonder how much they'll try to delay the NSC from approving the book.

hmm, Can't be released published because it's under audit review by the IRS NSC. 

OTOH, subpoenaed testimony isn't a book, published or not.

I really love how the WH is offering to work with Bolton to make the book publishable though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Gardner no on witnesses. GOP Senators talking confidently about being done by Friday.
 

They are going to pretend nothing has happened, to the shock and surprise of...

I sincerely hope there are political consequences for those who supported “no witnesses”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I sincerely hope there are political consequences for those who supported “no witnesses”.

It’s like a game show to keep raising the bar for ‘how corrupt can you be?’ And you just know the next time they rant about the Constitution or free speech or rule of law or w/e, they will sound exactly as emphatic and indignant as they ever have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I sincerely hope there are political consequences for those who supported “no witnesses”.

I have two good comments and will leave both.

Door number one:

Absolutely there will be consequences. Increased primary support in their Senate races.[spoiler/]

Door number two:

And I want to fuck Grace Kelly. [spoiler/]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I have two good comments and will leave both.

Door number one:

 

  Hide contents

Absolutely there will be consequences. Increased primary support in their Senate races.[spoiler/]

Door number two:

 

  Hide contents

And I want to fuck Grace Kelly. [spoiler/]

As to the second comment... ewwwwwww...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

It’s from the Death of Stalin.

 

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

What if kink shaming is what does it for me?

Well it just so happens that recognizing esoteric references does it for me...

:drool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I think that creating a model to estimate the overall winner is doable.  Obviously it's not perfect, but I think it could potentially be useful.  The problem is when you're showing graphics like how many pledged delegates each candidate has into the future, the error bars are just ridiculous.  [...]  So showing the "average" pledged delegates with a colossal uncertainty range just isn't useful.  They should just stop at the top line numbers, at least until after the first four states vote and the race settles down. 

Yeah, the bolded(s) is my point.  If I, or anyone, tried to construct a probabilistic primary model and then sought to get it published, it would not get through the review process because the model would almost certainly not achieve minimum standards in terms of reliability.  This is a normative problem with "data journalism" and Silver/538 specifically.  They present themselves as being grounded in the empirical process and being statistically sound, but in a lot of the measures they construct, the latter is not the case at all and just exposes how untrained they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

 

Well it just so happens that recognizing esoteric references does it for me...

:drool:

Lol, well, to get TMI, with twin girls due in a few weeks, at this point the right kind of breeze is good enough to get me going. 

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...