Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kalbear Total Landscaping

US Politics: Ruthless ambition

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

“Wanton endangerment”

Whoo hoo!

Is this legal weasel speak for "not murder?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Is this legal weasel speak for "not murder?"

From a Kentucky law blog:

Quote

Kentucky has two types of wanton endangerment; First-Degree and Second Degree:

First-Degree Wanton Endangerment: “A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person” (KRS 508.060). First-degree wanton endangerment is a Class D felony, punishable with fines of up to $10,000 and up to five years in prison.

Second-Degree Wanton Endangerment: “A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person” (KRS 508.070). Second-degree wanton endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable with fines of up to $500 and up to 12 months in county jail.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Anecdotally, NE IL and Southern WI are awash with Trump signs. Granted it seems there are far fewer Trump signs than in 2016 but I see almost no Biden signs. The Trump voters I interact with are the very opposite of the supposedly "shy Trump voter," they are loud and proud about it, so the Biden voters could just be keeping their heads down about their preference.

I know I personally would not openly flaunt my preference for Biden, not in this contentious atmosphere at least. Does that make me a coward? Yeah probably, but I really don't think signs, flags, or bumper stickers convince anyone to vote or switch their preferences, especially at the presidential level. Donations do a better job IMO.

Trump exceeds Biden signs probably 4 to 1 in the Northeast of the state, at least from what I observe during my commutes:stunned:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fez said:

Oh and states better be fucking prepared to count votes fast. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Quote

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires

People need to really not overlook the nightmare scenario Fez is posting here.

I am bracing for just such a shitstorm to play out. I'm still very worried the Dictator will steal this. If there's anything we do know it's that the Trump's are accomplished thieves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no shy Trump voters (there is some evidence for this that 538 has based on negligible difference in support for him between online and phone interviews). Anecdotally, here in Michigan they appear to be obnoxiously loud about their support. I put up my Biden sign up in the yard after I saw the lady across put up her Trump sign, wasnt gonna let that go unanswered lol.

We should be more worried about undersampling based on education, even though everyone swears up and down its been mostly corrected for (538 has a recent article that notes many but not all have done so, its difficult to do because educated people are more likely to answer polls apparently)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even MORE sanctions on Cuba, interfering yet again with US having any interaction whatsoever. And we were in the planning stages with more than one institution, including Cornell University.

But now it's illegal for US individuals and institutions to even participate in an academic conference, much less anything else, that involves Cubans. This latest isn't mentioned in the Reuters piece, but the lawyers for these matters just sent us all of it.

It is in the Miami Herald piece, of course.

Quote

 

The Treasury also eliminated a general authorization policy for the participation or organization of conferences, seminars, exhibitions and sporting events. Citizens, residents and companies subject to U.S. law must apply for a specific authorization or license for these activities.

The new rules will go into effect Thursday, when they will be officially published in the Federal Register.

 


Play to the ancient Miami Cubans -- but wait, he says coronavirus only affects old people so who the eff cares about it? What if those voters are all down with covid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

For the record, he isn't being charged with wanton endangerment for shooting Breonna, it is 3 counts of wanton endangerment for shooting up their neighbors walls. The walls got more justice than Breonna, this is a travesty.

Edited by GrimTuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

We should be more worried about undersampling based on education, even though everyone swears up and down its been mostly corrected for (538 has a recent article that notes many but not all have done so, its difficult to do because educated people are more likely to answer polls apparently)

As I've said before, it is not as simple a case as asking firms whether they corrected for education or not.  The decision to do so is based on the overall population (i.e. national vs. state polls) you're examining, the specifics of the model you're using to achieve a random sample of that population, and the hard data before doing any weighting/correcting.  While in general it's of course good for firms to be more alert to the mistake in under-sampling uneducated whites in 2016, any good scientific poll still should strive to achieve the most parsimonious model possible and remain attentive to the potential dangers of multicollinearity and overfitting.  Here's a quick explanation in (mostly) plain English:

Quote

An overfit model is one that is too complicated for your data set. When this happens, the regression model becomes tailored to fit the quirks and random noise in your specific sample rather than reflecting the overall population. If you drew another sample, it would have its own quirks, and your original overfit model would not likely fit the new data.

Instead, we want our model to approximate the true model for the entire population. Our model should not only fit the current sample, but new samples too.

The fitted line plot illustrates the dangers of overfitting regression models. This model appears to explain a lot of variation in the response variable. However, the model is too complex for the sample data. In the overall population, there is no real relationship between the predictor and the response.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and I'd be somewhat worried if a poll was using independent 'substantial' corrections for both income and education, as an example, since the two are correlated to a great extent. Still, and this is all 538, not me, the claim is that education is about as important as race as a predictor so it might not contribute to overparametrization.

At any rate, I am not as interested in the truth of a model as I am in getting its upper bound (i.e, the upper bound of support for Trump). In that respect, I am ok if pollsters oversample whites without college degrees or things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I dont know if we are allowed to read Minitab posts - we use JMP here in this joint. The latter also lets you know about collinearity in models (and probably has some good blog posts too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DMC said:

If you're trying to compare the US to different countries to try to figure out how the electorate/citizenry may impact a descent into a more authoritarian or "dysfunctional" regime, and you intentionally omit countries that have descended into more authoritarian or dysfunctional regimes, I don't know what else to tell you except your comparisons are incredibly stupid.

But you used Russia and China as examples. Russia has largely been an authoritarian state for a century plus with a brief flirtation with democracy and  I can't even recall a time when China wasn't one. Wouldn't it be much wiser if we're looking at non-Western European countries to compare the US to Turkey and some former Soviet states? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

At any rate, I am not as interested in the truth of a model as I am in getting its upper bound (i.e, the upper bound of support for Trump). In that respect, I am ok if pollsters oversample whites without college degrees or things like that.

I agree I'd prefer to see the upper bound as well, but public pollsters primary interest is obviously and understandably accuracy.

10 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

BTW, I dont know if we are allowed to read Minitab posts - we use JMP here in this joint. The latter also lets you know about collinearity in models (and probably has some good blog posts too)

It was just the first thing I found on google that described what I was looking for.  I don't use minitab or JMP - use STATA mostly and R if I have to.  What do you mean you're not allowed?

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

But you used Russia and China as examples. Russia has largely been an authoritarian state for a century plus with a brief flirtation with democracy and  I can't even recall a time when China wasn't one. Wouldn't it be much wiser if we're looking at non-Western European countries to compare the US to Turkey and some former Soviet states? 

Well, I think looking at Russia's quick reversion is certainly worth looking at.  Anyway, that was, like, 8 exchanges ago.  Your argument since has been to only compare the US to other durable democracies, that's the main thing I'm taking issue with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

For the record, he isn't being charged with wanton endangerment for shooting Breonna, it is 3 counts of wanton endangerment for shooting up their neighbors walls. The walls got more justice than Breonna, this is a travesty.

Yeah I just saw this. What a joke. I'm also curious if this will make it easier to give the cop a reduced sentence. The dentist from Alaska with the hoverboard is going to do more time than him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

The Dems might be able to get away with this for lower courts, but the SC would undoubtedly strike down any attempt to put a retirement age on their own tenure simple by citing Article III Section 1.  Even a liberal court would strike it down.

It's interesting, I've never heard the argument that lifetime appointment means a mandatory retirement age is unconstitutional.  It may just be my non-American roots.  But I'm skeptical that the courts will strike down a retirement age of 80 or so.  Here's a debate between Posner and Rakoff which touches briefly on the constitutionality of an age limit:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/07/should-there-be-age-limits-for-federal-judges.html.  But just because I'm on Richard Posner's side doesn't mean I'm wrong dammit... 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Like Week said, you have no way to know that he didn't try to encourage her privately.  Now, we all know he's not gonna be aggressive as Trump simply based on one has respect for the court and the constitution and the other does not.  And in Obama's case, he'd want to keep any efforts to influence Ginsburg private (as would she and her family, btw).  Permanently.  We're not finding out through his memoirs.

Well, I'm happy to say I made an assumption that he didn't and we don't know.  But I think it's also an assumption to say we will never find out or he won't mention in his memoirs.  Obama is human.  I expect him to talk about retirements and appointments and subtly deflect blame.  But we can wait until 2024 (Finish the book Barack!) and see who is right...

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

But I'm skeptical that the courts will strike down a retirement age of 80 or so.  Here's a debate between Posner and Rakoff which touches briefly on the constitutionality of an age limit:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/07/should-there-be-age-limits-for-federal-judges.html.  But just because I'm on Richard Posner's side doesn't mean I'm wrong dammit...

Heh, good one with the Posner joke.  I don't think it's realistic to expect SC justices to accept an imposition on their own tenure when it's perfectly reasonable to interpret "good behavior" as meaning any retirement limit is unconstitutional.

4 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Well, I'm happy to say I made an assumption that he didn't and we don't know.  But I think it's also an assumption to say we will never find out or he won't mention in his memoirs.

Certainly - although I disagree with you on the memoirs thing.  Publicly divulging that makes him look bad and Ginsburg look bad, I strongly suspect he'll never mention it publicly if it did happen.  I'm just objecting to you "blaming" him for not necessarily trying to pressure Ginsburg.  It's quite possible he would view such "encouragement" as improper - especially considering his background - and I in no way blame him if that's how he felt.  The responsibility to retire at the proper time is solely and entirely on Ginsburg herself, and I'm quite confident she would express the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My crackpot theroy is, that there was an agreement between Scalia and RBG, that they both exit the court at the same time as the two antipodes (they were close friends afterall).

And when RBG saw the shit McConnell pulled with the Scalia seat, she was doomed to stay.

It makes as much sense, as claiming Obama should've bullied her out.

Either way, I think we should really thank the folks who did not turn out to vote in 2016 for reasons, and thus gifting them a shit ton of court appointments, and no less than three SCOTUS appointments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing groups on twitter are freaking out because someone brought a U-Haul with signs and some small number of makeshift riot shields, as if this is some violent show of force. Meanwhile here is a couple of videos of Meal Team 6 of the Gravy Seals getting ready to "defend property"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those guys are fucking idiots and look like cosplayers.  And I'm also terrified because nothing ever happens to them and they are encouraged by the police to do what they are doing w/ near impunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Those guys are fucking idiots and look like cosplayers.  And I'm also terrified because nothing ever happens to them and they are encouraged by the police to do what they are doing w/ near impunity.

That's called a private militia. Welcome to the new world order. Make sure to say a thank you to everyone who argued for acceleration of the decay in our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...