Wrath of Dagon

The poll results for likely voters are heavily influenced by the turn-out model used, these models involve a lot of guesswork, see Brexit polling, etc. But my feeling is the 538 probabilities are pretty accurate at this moment and there's not much time left.

Government thinks the citizens are morons: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/05/washingtons-governing-elite-actually-think-americans-are-morons/

Well, OK, I did gloss over your saying he influenced other justices, since you seemed dismissive of him for mostly writing concurrences and dissents. And the article I was going to link but couldn't find gave him far more prominence than your words would suggest, so I'll admit my phrasing wasn't good. Edit: OK, I finally managed to find the other article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/giving-thomas-his-due/article/988078#

Not any different from the rest of the press.

There's nothing flimsy about it, they asked for a response and didn't get it. At least they're willing to report on subjects the mainstream media tries to cover up. Not everyone agrees with Gromnir's opinion of Justice Thomas: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/clarence-thomas-often-stands-alone-as-opinions-set/ http://thehill.com/regulation/other/202633-is-it-clarence-thomass-court I've read an even better article but can't find it now.

Why would I do that? I'm not publishing stories here. Do you really feel sending an email is digging deep? Do you want them to stake out the museum? I suppose since it's a government institution they could file a FOIA request, but that would probably take a year or more. And why not send them an email if you're interested in the answer, or are you just asking for argument's sake?

You can send the museum an email if you're interested. I don't know how they're supposed to dig deeper when the museum won't respond, not that it's so difficult to figure out what's going on anyway.

Circa that I linked above said this "Museum officials acknowledged that Thomas has "very little presence" in any of the exhibitions." Breitbart said that the museum did not return their inquiries.

Well, yes, a communist lens, she's a communist in case you don't know. Big hero in the Soviet Union too.

Do you understand how bizarre that argument is? A national museum does a major exhibition just because they happen to have a pin with a name on it. But they absolutely can not obtain any item of Thomas, or just put up a photo, and therefore have to skip over him entirely. lol

If you read the link right above your post, you'll see that they do have a lot on people. It would be a very strange African-American history museum without any African-Americans.

That would be pretty bizarre. Although he is still serving, so he might not fit the criteria for an exhibit. Is there an Obama exhibit? It would be interesting if they managed to get a reason out of the museum, instead of just relying on conjecture. There are also plenty of other conservatives in recent government posts, so if this really were a political issue, I'd imagine Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell would also be snubbed. They don't really have exhibits - as I understand it - on people. The items related to Obama (First Lady's Dress worn to the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, a "Librarians for Obama" pin, a portrait of Obama, etc) would be in the exhibition of post 1968 history, I believe. A search of their holdings show nothing connected to "Clarence Thomas", "Condoleezza Rice" or "Colin Powell". That said the only item associated with Anita Hill is a donated pin with "I belive Anita" on it. When they create the exhibits, they can only do so with what they actually have in their holdings, so the obvious question I'd have about this potential snub is did anyone try to donate items related to Justice Thomas and the museum refused the donation? Or is this a case of not spending time on someone that they have nothing in the collection to relate his story to? A lot of questions to ask on this one, I think, before leaping to "libruls". Surely if they wanted to include him in the exhibit, they could've asked for a significant item. They didn't seem to have that problem in including BLM. Edit: Apparently there's plenty on other people, including Anita Hill, but in fairness there isn't much on Thurgood Marshall either, but more than on Thomas: http://circa.com/politics/people/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-ignored-by-national-museum-of-african-american-histo

African-American history museum snubs Clarence Thomas: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/05/african-american-smithsonian-snubs-justice-clarence-thomas/

You're incoherent. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about and go cry home to your mommy.

You don't even know what ad hominem means. Here's the full quote Where does he say they are "wrong" because they are "mean", the logical fallacy is in your head, not in the paragraph.

in the joshua goldberg article? are you serious? am sensing we are at the crux o' the problem. Good way to avoid responding. Give me one or two examples, or stfu.

OK, give me an example of lack of logic or reason in that article. Edit: Also I know who Scott Adams is, so there's no reason for me to check him for being a troll. So your argument is faulty.

WOD you cant take it seriously, I have been subjected to similar jokes If you believe you are right about something then just link it and if people dont believe you thats there choice. But dont get annoyed by people disputing what you say or teasing you Its just examples of forum badinage ....its to be expected I wasn't annoyed, I just pointed out he was being tiresome with his lame jokes. Also spam is against forum rules, but that's up to the mods.

You're not really being funny.

image wod actually used joshua goldberg as a source. he used goldberg as a source After goldberg were revealed to be an internet troll, and basement dwelling schizophrenic. how can any o' his sources surprise? I already explained that I didn't know that when I linked the article. Your continuing to carp on that only shows your level of immaturity. Edit: People afraid to speak their minds on Stalinist campuses: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/10/04/afraid-to-speak-up-in-the-era-of-trigger-warnings-a-tenured-professor-stays-silent/?postshare=8661475684224224&tid=ss_fb

He was making a philosophical point, not so different from people saying we probably live in computer simulation: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143217546751/science-proves-science-is-an-illusion

DOJ makes another politicized decision not to prosecute: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115 Stalinist persecution of Dilbert - Scott Adams claims the Clintons are going after him : http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151301555066/the-week-i-became-a-target

Another similarity with Stalinism, people were encouraged to rat each other out: http://thetab.com/us/columbia/2016/10/01/i-was-reported-for-gender-misconduct-for-calling-myself-handsome-in-class-2611 Although they didn't bother with re-education, they just shot you.

What lies? You're saying there were no purges?

and you are not realizing that you just identified the real problem. HA! Good Fun! I guess this doesn't sound like a Stalinist purge to you: https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/