US Politics: On Tear and Blood shed. A beautiful picture of a man with a Bible.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is amusing since you went for 3 posts about how I was comparing covid to other things and how ludicrous it was.

huh?

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I guess I don't get why you're so assured of Trump's losing based on things like a 42% approval rate, then. 

I never said I was assured.  That's your interpretation based on a conversation derived from statistical probabilities.  In fact, the end of that conversation was me (again) literally saying Trump could figure out many other means to win.  Your ignoring this at this point is trying my patience.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And I just don't see him having a legit reason as mattering that much. Birtherism wasn't legitimate by a large margin. He literally just accused a 75 year old man as being a terrorist and no one in his party or fox news called him on it. 

It matters for the thousands of election officials that have to implement his corruption.  Are you seriously this fucking obtuse?  Covid gives them a reason.  You seem to be on a different reality where there aren't people - paid and volunteer - that try to ensure free and fair elections.  There are.  Covid fucks that up.  None of your other shit does.  Get a fucking clue, cuz I'm really done now.

[Zorral]

We have always known there is nothing he won't say and nothing he won't do -- or get someone else to do on his behalf.

Not just birther nonsense but that most hoary and tried and true, not just babies on bayonets, but premature babies ripped from incubators -- 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

Deathcultists selling baby onesies with T&P on the back, and in the front "BABIES MATTER!"

Presumably, as They are frequently illiterate, They meant to Say ONLY WHITE BABIES MATTER."

I'm not providing the link but it is an easy google.

Anyway, it's all over, Murdoch has announced, as he did in the previous election, that deathcultchief is going to lose.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/rupert-murdoch-trump-lose-november-election

 

 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I never said I was assured.  That's your interpretation based on a conversation derived from statistical probabilities.  In fact, the end of that conversation was me (again) literally saying Trump could figure out many other means to win.  Your ignoring this at this point is trying my patience.

Oh man, not your patience, heaven forbid

You've said this many times over the years. If you really want to I can go back and pull some of this out. This wasn't a one-time occurrence. I realize you might have been drunk or high and don't remember, and I won't hold that against you, but I'm not going to be gaslit about this either. 

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

It matters for the thousands of election officials that have to implement his corruption.  Are you seriously this fucking obtuse? 

Apparently, because I believe that for the most part people caving to peer pressure and authority is going to happen and be more effecting than than them following their own judgment and doing the right thing in spite of POTUS telling them otherwise. And statistically, about 40-50% of all people are going to be totally on board with whatever fuckery he wants. 

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Covid gives them a reason.  You seem to be on a different reality where there aren't people - paid and volunteer - that try to ensure free and fair elections.  There are.  Covid fucks that up.  None of your other shit does.  Get a fucking clue, cuz I'm really done now.

There are people who try to ensure these things. I just don't think that they're going to be that effective, because they've not had the kind of force against them that they do now. 

[Fragile Bird]

The latest news from the Trump campaign team: if you attend a rally, you cannot sue if you get Covid-19.

But come out and see the Orange one! It's safe! Honest!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The latest news from the Trump campaign team: if you attend a rally, you cannot sue if you get Covid-19.

But come out and see the Orange one! It's safe! Honest!

I'm watching that right now.

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you really want to I can go back and pull some of this out.

Then do it.  Otherwise shut the fuck up.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The latest news from the Trump campaign team: if you attend a rally, you cannot sue if you get Covid-19.

But come out and see the Orange one! It's safe! Honest!

I thought the real Americans caught and beat COVID-19?

[Martell Spy]

45 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The latest news from the Trump campaign team: if you attend a rally, you cannot sue if you get Covid-19.

But come out and see the Orange one! It's safe! Honest!

Has nothing to do with the virus. Only corporations are people and get the ability to file a lawsuit. People aren't really people, in particular the cattle like workers and voters.

[Bonnot OG]

gotta love fascism and persecuting people for their political beliefs that don’t preach oppression or genocide like the ones they love to protect in neo nazis and White supremacists. 

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Then do it.  Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Okay! 

Here's you saying that Trump has a low chance of winning:
https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/155096-us-politics-reaching-the-tipping-point/&do=findComment&comment=8397232
And another one:
https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/155096-us-politics-reaching-the-tipping-point/page/17/&tab=comments#comment-8399933
Here's you saying to me again that all these ideas are ludicrous:
https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/155096-us-politics-reaching-the-tipping-point/page/21/&tab=comments#comment-8400695
 

I'll keep digging - this is only about 1/4th of the posts. Did you know that our wayback machine only covers, like, barely two years? That was kind of weird. 

There's also another psuedo bet coming up where I said Roberts is going to fuck over the ACA and you said he wouldn't, so we've got that going for us.

[DMC]

Let's quote instead of links.  Ya know, not pretend we're full of shit or anything.  That's agreeable, right?  First one:

Quote

Considering he hasn't even hit 43% approval in 538's aggregate since his first 100 days, I would definitely not describe Trump's reelection chances as "very good."  He's the most consistently unpopular president in the history of polling, in spite of a healthy and arguably vibrant economy, at least at the macro level.  If I was on Trump's side, I'd be a lot more concerned than I am on the, ya know, sane side.

I agree when I said that.  In fact, that's kind of my point now.  So, that's your first "link."  Let's see the next:

Quote

It was a fluke.  I had a whole post composed about why but it was mostly just me showing off, so I deleted it.  Point is, at least if the election was held today, it's very unlikely he'd thread that MI, PA, WI, needle.  We'll see.

This was in response to a post by Triskele, according to the link.  I have no idea/memory about, at all.  Sounds like all I was saying is Trump was weak in the Midwest at the time.  What a crazy proposition!   What's your third piece of flair Kal?  Oh...ya know what, I actually liked that one.  I'm too lazy to figure out where you got a problem with it, but if you want me to kick your ass again, lemme know.  You got a problem with it, then state it.  Here it is:

Quote

Anyway, I know this board has to express its anxiety about Trump refusing to leave office every few months.  And that's good, it's like talk therapy.  But the idea that he'll be able to stage a coup because he has large support - or even "infiltrated" - the military and law enforcement is just willful fantasy.  Do active duty members tend to support Trump more than the general public?  Yes, although it trends pretty closely to his overall approval.  Are there neo-nazis in the military and law enforcement?  Sure, that's called probability.  But in terms of the military, you know who doesn't like Trump?  The officers:

  Quote

As has been the case in the past, the poll shows that officers are less enamored with Trump than enlisted troops. More than half have an unfavorable view of his presidency, against 41 percent who have a favorable view.

Still, that’s an improvement for Trump, who saw only a 31 percent favorable rating from officers in the poll one year ago.

Couple that with the fact that, as @Zorral noted, he can't even find someone to run the Pentagon, and the idea that he could exact a military junta is manifestly farcical.  Then lets look at law enforcement.  You mean like the FBI that he's waged war with to an unprecedented degree basically since taking office?  Or the intelligence community, who he only berates on occasion?  To stage a coup, you need the support of institutional elites.  Trump explicitly ran against institutional elites, and has been damn true to his word in that regard. 

The logic that Trump has the capability to deny an election result or refuse to hold an election based on his support from the military and law enforcement is wholly and decidedly ass-backwards.  Now, will he whine about the result if he loses and decry it as illegitimate?  Of Fucking Course.  But his avenue is much more likely to be to take it to court.  That's his MO - suing people - not being competent enough to stage a coup by harnessing the most well-funded and complex security organization in the world.

As for the tanker attacks being another Gulf of Tonkin, gimme a break.  On the night of the "second attack," LBJ went on national television to saber-rattle.  Where is Trump on this if that was his intent?  He'd be whining about this on twitter every morning at 4am.  Instead he's whining about Fox News polls.  Do Pompeo and Bolton have a hard on for a war in Iran?  Duh, they both have their entire careers.  But their employ is more a reflection of the fact nobody else is willing to work for him, not that Trump is really interested in starting a war. 

That's not to say Trump won't wag the dog eventually - if he suspects he's gonna lose I could totally see him ginning something up, and he almost certainly will do so at least IRT tweeting like an idiot.  But one could make the argument that he ran as the less hawkish candidate compared to Clinton.  And, really, he hasn't done anything militarily in two and a half years to think that's changed.  When there's evidence that's changed, yeah, the opposition should be vigilant against it.  But until then you're just worrying for worrying's sake.  Doctors tell me that's not helpful.

 

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'll keep digging - this is only about 1/4th of the posts. Did you know that our wayback machine only covers, like, barely two years? That was kind of weird. 

Keep digging!  We can further figure our how wrong you are and hilariously think you're right!

[ThinkerX]

regarding Trumps upcoming Tulsa rally.  To me, this falls into the category of 'blatant provocation.'  Trump, or somebody on his staff, *KNOWS* the left will flock there in massive numbers, setting the stage for clashes between protesters, Trump followers, and police.  Anything along these lines happens Trumps uses it as justification for a massive countrywide military crackdown - which he wanted to do in the first place.  The propaganda would be along the lines of 'these violent leftist thugs attacked a legitimate political rally and endangered the presidents life.'  (would that be enough to fend off a court challenge?) 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

regarding Trumps upcoming Tulsa rally.  To me, this falls into the category of 'blatant provocation.'  Trump, or somebody on his staff, *KNOWS* the left will flock there in massive numbers, setting the stage for clashes between protesters, Trump followers, and police.  Anything along these lines happens Trumps uses it as justification for a massive countrywide military crackdown - which he wanted to do in the first place.  The propaganda would be along the lines of 'these violent leftist thugs attacked a legitimate political rally and endangered the presidents life.'  (would that be enough to fend off a court challenge?) 

Honestly, I've been thinking along these exact lines. This seems to be a deliberate provocation in order to have an excuse to send in the troops. I wouldn't even put it past our dipshit governor to go along with some kind of idiotic "plan".

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Let's quote instead of links.  Ya know, not pretend we're full of shit or anything.  That's agreeable, right?  First one:

I agree when I said that.  In fact, that's kind of my point now.  So, that's your first "link."  Let's see the next:

So your point is that he's going to lose, except that when I just asked you you said he isn't because he's going to cheat? What the hell? 

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

This was in response to a post by Triskele, according to the link.  I have no idea/memory about, at all. 

There's a shock

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sounds like all I was saying is Trump was weak in the Midwest at the time.  What a crazy proposition! 

Which is both odd given polling, and again - odd with the non-caveat that you think he'll cheat. Which...you still didn't state. 

That was my point, by the way - that you have been supposedly pessimistic about his losing because you think he'll do things outside normal elections. These are examples of posts where you said nothing of the kind, and appear to be pretty optimistic that he'll lose. 

So, yeah, that was my point. Thanks for agreeing with it. Or were you drunk before and forgot what I was saying?

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

What's your third piece of flair Kal?  Oh...ya know what, I actually liked that one.  I'm too lazy to figure out where you got a problem with it, but if you want me to kick your ass again, lemme know.  You got a problem with it, then state it.  Here it is:

Again, it's because you are now saying that you think Trump is going to cheat his way through everything and have been saying that for years, and when I said that you really haven't and have been arguing with me about that very action...are now saying that that's your position. Heck, in that third quote  you do precisely that, where you think that he might gin something up and try, but you also say that it won't matter all that much, and you also imply it is entirely to do with, say, starting a quick war or something. There's nothing in there about cheating or stealing that I've found, not once. 

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Keep digging!  We can further figure our how wrong you are and hilariously think you're right!

Again - here's what you said:

"I never said I was assured.  That's your interpretation based on a conversation derived from statistical probabilities.  In fact, the end of that conversation was me (again) literally saying Trump could figure out many other means to win.  Your ignoring this at this point is trying my patience."

I suppose you haven't used the specific wording 'assured'. If you're caring that much about semantics, I guess you win. But you have not remotely stated that you think it's likely or probable that that's the case. 

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So your point is that he's going to lose, except that when I just asked you you said he isn't because he's going to cheat? What the hell?

What the hell indeed.  Can you not realize the difference between data analysis and predictions?  I mean, seriously dude, do I have to treat you like a little boy?  I do that with some posters.  Never thought you'd be one of them.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Which is both odd given polling, and again - odd with the non-caveat that you think he'll cheat. Which...you still didn't state. 

That was my point, by the way - that you have been supposedly pessimistic about his losing because you think he'll do things outside normal elections. These are examples of posts where you said nothing of the kind, and appear to be pretty optimistic that he'll lose. 

So, yeah, that was my point. Thanks for agreeing with it. Or were you drunk before and forgot what I was saying?

How was it odd given the polling?  I looked back - it totally was in agreement with the polling.  When will you stop making things up?  Or ignoring the parts of my posts that I point out all you're doing is making things up.  Because all you're doing is making things up.

I am optimistic Trump will lose!  Quote as many posts I said about that I said as possible!  Please!  I hope he will lose, and data right now says he almost certainly will - in any regular environment.  Can you possibly argue that?  No, so you resort to this type of fucking bullshit.  Well, fuck you.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, it's because you are now saying that you think Trump is going to cheat his way through everything and have been saying that for years, and when I said that you really haven't and have been arguing with me about that very action...are now saying that that's your position. Heck, in that third quote  you do precisely that, where you think that he might gin something up and try, but you also say that it won't matter all that much, and you also imply it is entirely to do with, say, starting a quick war or something. There's nothing in there about cheating or stealing that I've found, not once. 

I have no idea how to parse this.  Honestly I tried to read it all, and I think you may need help.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again - here's what you said:

..............Are you fucking serious with this?  I was kinda joking about the getting help thing, but fucking a dude.  Here's what you just quoted from me:

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

"I never said I was assured.  That's your interpretation based on a conversation derived from statistical probabilities.  In fact, the end of that conversation was me (again) literally saying Trump could figure out many other means to win.  Your ignoring this at this point is trying my patience."

Now, I know i said your instead of you're, but I don't think that's a dying offense.

Everything else?  I still agree with.  You've gone digging in my old posts.  Congrats on a ruined night!  It must have been...terrible.  And probably dirty.  And YOU HAVE FOUND NOTHING.  So, please, like I said from the get-go, get the fuck off my shit.  I don't know what I did gain such attention, but unless you magically change into an attractive woman, I'd really like you to stop being so obsessed with me.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

What the hell indeed.  Can you not realize the difference between data analysis and predictions?  I mean, seriously dude, do I have to treat you like a little boy?  I do that with some posters.  Never thought you'd be one of them. 

Honestly, at this point you're flip-flopping more than Kerry. What I'd like is for you to state a position and stick with it instead of shitting on people for making predictions that you've shit on all this time and claiming that was your stance all along. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

How was it odd given the polling?  I looked back - it totally was in agreement with the polling.  When will you stop making things up?  Or ignoring the parts of my posts that I point out all you're doing is making things up.  Because all you're doing is making things up. 

Polling in midwest states has not been bad for Trump at almost any point. Including when you made that post. Overall polling wasn't great, but he was still winning handily in Wisconsin and PA and MI were tied. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I am optimistic Trump will lose!  Quote as many posts I said about that I said as possible!  Please!  I hope he will lose, and data right now says he almost certainly will - in any regular environment.  Can you possibly argue that?  No, so you resort to this type of fucking bullshit.  Well, fuck you. 

Data right this instant? Says it's about 50-50, assuming those midwest states have a 3% polling error rate. It certainly isn't 83% by a data standard. And that's just the data. But hey, you're optimistic. So why did you give me shit and tell me you (and apparently everyone else) thinks that he's going to steal the election?

How does 'I think he'll lose' and "I think he'll steal the election" work as a position? 

But that 'in any regular environment' is the real stickler. You've been apparently ignoring that little externality thing in your analysis for a while now, and then bring it up whenever it suits you to shit on other people. This isn't a regular environment. It's not been a regular environment since 2016. The notion that any data analysis can be reasonable based on that fact alone - much less all the other stuff predicted - is weird to me. But I'd abide by that if you weren't trying to have it both ways - to claim that the analysis is fine, that you think he'll lose, and also somehow that you think he'll do something fairly horrible based on covid and voter repression. I don't get at all how those two things are squared in your mind. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I have no idea how to parse this.  Honestly I tried to read it all, and I think you may need help.

I'm having to stay up for hours to deal with outages at work. I certainly could use some help. What's your excuse?

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Everything else?  I still agree with.  You've gone digging in my old posts.  Congrats on a ruined night!  It must have been...terrible.  And probably dirty.  And YOU HAVE FOUND NOTHING.  So, please, like I said from the get-go, get the fuck off my shit.  I don't know what I did gain such attention, but unless you magically change into an attractive woman, I'd really like you to stop being so obsessed with me.

I'm bored, and I have to wait for things to build, so you get my focus right now. The night was already ruined. 

So just so we're clear - do you think Trump is going to steal the election (like I predicted) or not? Do you think he's going to win the election (like you said a few posts ago) or do you think he won't (like you said just now)? Have you always thought that he was going to steal the election (which is what you said a few posts ago) or do you think he'll win (which is what you said just now)?

[James Arryn]

Guys.

[DireWolfSpirit]

So I was listening to NPR on the way home from work a few nights ago, they had a program that was discussing the BLM movement, the protests and the debate over defunding police departments.

The lady being interviewed was making her case for what proposed defunding really meant or would mean for her community (Baltimore).

She pointed out the most bizarre statistic I could ever imagine. She said a recent annual budget proposal for Baltimore called for $500 million in funding for the Police dept.....and only $80 million for their education system.

$500 million for law enforcement and only $80 million for the schools.....seems like an absolutely bizarre imbalance. I now understand what some of the activists mean about defunding these departments, they are saying more of the pie to things in the community like schools and teachers.

The equation has become way out of balance for places like Baltimore.

[DMC]

40 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Guys.

How dare you attack girls!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

How dare you attack girls!

Are you "The woman" Trump was talking about?