Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Only Death Can Pay For Growth


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Has there ever been an occasion where police beating people and spraying them with pepper spray and tear gas has gone on to actually help a situation and not just made things much much worse? I don’t really understand why it continues to be used as a tactic.

It’s short term gain without worrying about the long term consequences.

So just like modern capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Likewise by concentrating a party's voters in one district, the opposing party's percentage goes up in another.  Maybe you were a polo sci major, I was a math major, more sure on this one.  This should also tend to make that district's winner more partisan on average as well.

Maybe you were drunk and thinking sloppily, but not sure how asking those questions is "making things up".  And a court ruling on the legality or not of minority majority districts doesn't address the second order effects as a rigorous study would. 

Not sure what you're going on about in terms math or anything else.  Obviously, yes, concentrating partisan voters in one district makes it more partisan (towards that party) and saps their proportional influence in other districts.  That's the entire point of gerrymandering.  My point was there's no reason to look into ethnicity, or racial gerrymandering, because the court already ruled the practice unconstitutional (in a series of cases during the 90s).  Majority-minority districts today naturally occur due to partisan sorting and the rural/urban divide.  If a state tried to racially gerrymander to artificially increase the number of majority-minority districts over the past two (now the third) redistricting periods, the state GOP party would undoubtedly take it to court and undoubtedly win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll get lost in the shuffle of everything else going on, but there was an important late night SCOTUS ruling last night. Roberts joined the liberals for a 5-4 decision upholding California's restrictions on large church gatherings during a pandemic.

www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/29/supreme-court-denies-illinois-churches-lockdown-relief-290185

And speaking of COVID-19, I totally get why protests are happening, but I'm terrified what the pandmeic situation is going to look like now in a couple weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

It'll get lost in the shuffle of everything else going on, but there was an important late night SCOTUS ruling last night. Roberts joined the liberals for a 5-4 decision upholding California's restrictions on large church gatherings during a pandemic.

www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/29/supreme-court-denies-illinois-churches-lockdown-relief-290185

And speaking of COVID-19, I totally get why protests are happening, but I'm terrified what the pandmeic situation is going to look like now in a couple weeks.

That’s good news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

It'll get lost in the shuffle of everything else going on, but there was an important late night SCOTUS ruling last night. Roberts joined the liberals for a 5-4 decision upholding California's restrictions on large church gatherings during a pandemic.

Yeah I saw that, certainly an encouraging sign.  One of the very few lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

It'll get lost in the shuffle of everything else going on, but there was an important late night SCOTUS ruling last night. Roberts joined the liberals for a 5-4 decision upholding California's restrictions on large church gatherings during a pandemic.

www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/29/supreme-court-denies-illinois-churches-lockdown-relief-290185

SOCIALISM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Shut up you polo sci PhD candidate! It's not like you're a statistician basically or anything.

There've been many advances in polo science, but it's still difficult to train the horses to conduct quality statistical analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

SOCIALISM!

Well I guess Roberts didn't use the Scalia method of deciding constitutional questions, which is: Depends on whether I can throw hippies in jail. If hippies are going to  jail I'm all about the commerce clause. If hippies are going to jail, then I think religious freedom doesn't exclude you from obeying laws of general applicability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

There've been many advances in polo science, but it's still difficult to train the horses to conduct quality statistical analysis.

How dare you insult Jace's ponies!

And I can say, in the game of water polo, there's a 100% chance I will "accidentally" hit someone in the face with the, wait is it technically called a ball?

(water polo is fucking vicious, man)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

 Likewise by concentrating a party's voters in one district, the opposing party's percentage goes up in another.  Maybe you were a polo sci major, I was a math major, more sure on this one.  This should also tend to make that district's winner more partisan on average as well.

What you are saying here is a bunch of baloney. The implication that there some kind of mathematical proof that makes effects of gerrymandering nil is pure horeshit.

To make this simple. Suppose I have a set of nine people, five democrats and four Republicans. It looks something like S = {D1,D2,D3,D4,D5, R1,R2,R3,R4,}. Supposing further I have to divide this set into three subsets. I certainly could pick combinations that would make the Ds be fewer in most of the sub sets. The way to do this would be to put the Ds into one set. So I'd get something like:

Set 1= {D1,D2,D3}

Set 2 = {R1,R2,D4}

Set 3 = {R3,R4,D5}

So even though Ds are the majority in the superset, I can make a combination where the Rs are a majority in two of the sets.

If conservatives want to be taken seriously, they really need to stop with this kind of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mormont said:

We often hear a lot about 'censorship' and 'free speech' on this thread in relation to Twitter suspensions, speakers being protested on campus, people complaining about hate speech, and so on. But I think, and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me on this one, but I think that police arresting and shooting at journalists might indicate an actual free speech problem?

They are both speech problems. Honestly, at times some on the left can't make their minds up about free speech. But this one is easy. Where things get more insidious is when policemen try to file civil suits against protesters. Like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-police-officer-sued-a-black-lives-matter-protester-for-violence-he-didnt-commit-whats-next-has-free-speech-advocates-worried/2019/12/13/f02cd082-1d09-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

There've been many advances in polo science, but it's still difficult to train the horses to conduct quality statistical analysis.

This horse says, screw you, and your horsism. As this horse has worked with MatLab and SPSS, to conduct Logistic Regressions, Multiple Regressions, Factor Analysis. (Not to mention the colt's (or kid's as you human's call it) stuff, like t-tests and ANOVAs).

Ofc, this horse would never lower itself to be used in a game of polo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

This horse says, screw you, and your horsism. As this horse has worked with MatLab and SPSS, to conduct Logistic Regressions, Multiple Regressions, Factor Analysis.

There's a difference between running regressions and properly interpreting the results.  Even a monkey can do the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's a difference between running regressions and properly interpreting the results.  Even a monkey can do the former.

Beware of the intern at the Cato institute that was allowed near an excel spreadsheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's a difference between running regressions and properly interpreting the results.  Even a monkey can do the former.

Did you call horrses monkeys now?

And yes, obviously, even primates, or humans for that matter can click the buttons in SPSS and get results with marked with stars. However, that human should probably spend a bit more time on thinking what numbers it enters into the program of choice, and which results should (or could) be significant and why. That's why horses, do read relevant resarch before they enter stuff into SPSS. Even Mr. Ed knew that it's smarter to think, before calculating. And he got screwed over by MGM for crying out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's a difference between running regressions and properly interpreting the results.  Even a monkey can do the former.

I think the hardest part is thinking through the model to make sure you didn't mispecify it and understanding where there might be omitted variable bias and so forth.

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...