Politics... US election edition

[Elerond]

2 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

AOC is a freshman, soon to be sophomore, representative in the House for about 700,000 people in New York. It is strange how much attention she gets from both sides of the aisle in this country. 

Funnily AOC has national level visibility and power to drive her issues through mainly because of people who oppose her 

[Elerond]

4 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I think the most common case is, where there are votes for a POTUS candiate only. Again its late for me and I have better things to do than to track every single story related to US election. 

I like to conduct thought experiments and think on what ifs scenarios to reset my brain from daily work with numbers, algorithms, processes and people working with them. 

But if there are for example miss counting because of tabulation machine for example, that should effect all elections not only presidential race

[Darkpriest]

11 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Your analogy might work if it was a few thousand planes that were hijacked.

I do not disagree. I do not know how big the probability is. 

Btw, i recommend to read these.

https://medium.com/@kuangalia/the-ten-commandments-of-logic-d4c9f0e08482

https://www.relativelyinteresting.com/10-commandments-rational-debate-logical-fallacies-explained/

https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Gromnir]

10 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

 

Do you really see no scenario, no matter how improbable, that these counts and EC predictions could be changed to favor Trump? 

 

...

...

prove it isn't possible?

and folks wonder how the qanon silliness takes hold.

as to aoc, she is almost as much o' a fact checking nightmare as is trump. 

Ocasio-Cortez: People More Concerned About Me Being "Factually Correct" Than "Morally Right"

"If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."

yeah... no.

HA! Good Fun!

[Darkpriest]

@GromnirI agree, people following various movements, tend to belive into highly improbable things, but for them these are certainties. Same like people of different religions belive their faith is true, even if in the reality none of them might be true.

Dealing with things in absolutes like 'sure' or 'impossible' can be used to express beliefs and other emotionally loaded messages, but otherwise it is inaccurate in terms of probabilities. 

 

 

[Guard Dog]

@Gromniryou were right. Even I could not predict how low he’d stoop. Despite his long history in public life which made this all but assured. He even made me of all people look optimistic. 
 

On another note I saw on the news there were fireworks in London and they rang the bell‘s in Paris win Biden won. What the hell? They really need to get a life. The outcome of the US presidential election is not that consequential. Especially for the Georgia senate runoff goes the ways we hope.

[Chairchucker]

3 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

as to aoc, she is almost as much o' a fact checking nightmare as is trump. 

Little bit of hyperbole? AOC's comments that earned her the 4 pinocchios were bad maths based mostly on misunderstanding the data, and although her response isn't ideal, she didn't try to double down.

 

You had to go back 2 years to find some bad maths for AOC, if you track back about *checks twitter* 2 hours, you have Trump saying he won Georgia.

[Chairchucker]

Just now, Guard Dog said:

note I saw on the news there were fireworks in London and they rang the bell‘s in Paris win Biden won. What the hell? They really need to get a life. The outcome of the US presidential election is not that consequential. Especially for the Georgia senate runoff goes the ways we hope.

LOL it was Guy Fawkes Day.

[Guard Dog]

Just now, Chairchucker said:

LOL it was Guy Fawkes Day.

Oh OK. That makes more sense then!

[ComradeYellow]

AOC is a fraud and a phony, the end. 

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

On another note I saw on the news there were fireworks in London and they rang the bell‘s in Paris win Biden won. What the hell? They really need to get a life. The outcome of the US presidential election is not that consequential. Especially for the Georgia senate runoff goes the ways we hope.

Yeah I'm a bit tired Europeans obsessing over American politics, almost as much as I am Americans looking to Europe as some kind of model for the future.  The same continent that produced Napoleon and Hitler shouldn't be an example.

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@GromnirI agree, people following various movements, tend to belive into highly improbable things, but for them these are certainties. Same like people of different religions belive their faith is true, even if in the reality none of them might be true.

Dealing with things in absolutes like 'sure' or 'impossible' can be used to express beliefs and other emotionally loaded messages, but otherwise it is inaccurate in terms of probabilities. 

 

 

*sigh*

if the election cannot be deemed legit until every hairbrained conspiracy theory, no matter how improbable, is proved impossible, then we will never have a resolution. we would never have a resolution... evar.

as to aoc, we didn't need go back 2 years... a couple days.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/08/trailer-democrats-won-white-house-lost-myth-about-turnout/

Justice Democrats, the group founded after 2016 to elect Democrats such as Ocasio-Cortez, whipped together a chart of the wins and losses in key districts to argue that candidates who rejected Medicare-for-all, among other left-wing goals, did worse than those who didn't.

“The swing-district Democrats who fell off the most from their 2018 results were more conservative than the candidates who outperformed their 2018 results,” said Justice Democrats spokesman Waleed Shahid.

The chart was not convincing to many Democrats. It made calculations about results in New York, for example, that will be altered when absentee ballots are counted, and it counted Democrats who had co-sponsored left-wing bills as left-wing candidates; many, such as Maine's Jared Golden, had backed the legislation but rarely campaigned on it.

aoc plays fast and loose with facts all the time. we went back two years 'cause she were honest 'bout what she were doing back then.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Chairchucker]

3 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

The same continent that produced Napoleon and Hitler shouldn't be an example.

Seems a bit hasty to dismiss any ideas from an entire continent based on two leaders out of I'm not sure how many.

[Chairchucker]

2 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

 

as to aoc, we didn't need go back 2 years... a couple days.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/08/trailer-democrats-won-white-house-lost-myth-about-turnout/

Justice Democrats, the group founded after 2016 to elect Democrats such as Ocasio-Cortez, whipped together a chart of the wins and losses in key districts to argue that candidates who rejected Medicare-for-all, among other left-wing goals, did worse than those who didn't.

“The swing-district Democrats who fell off the most from their 2018 results were more conservative than the candidates who outperformed their 2018 results,” said Justice Democrats spokesman Waleed Shahid.

The chart was not convincing to many Democrats. It made calculations about results in New York, for example, that will be altered when absentee ballots are counted, and it counted Democrats who had co-sponsored left-wing bills as left-wing candidates; many, such as Maine's Jared Golden, had backed the legislation but rarely campaigned on it.

aoc plays fast and loose with facts all the time. we went back two years 'cause she were honest 'bout what she were doing back then.

HA! Good Fun!

 

I can't actually read that because it's paywalled, but the bits you've quoted don't actually mention AOC saying anything, and don't really refute what's being claimed in any meaningful way.

[Gromnir]

11 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

I can't actually read that because it's paywalled, but the bits you've quoted don't actually mention AOC saying anything, and don't really refute what's being claimed in any meaningful way.

aoc recent tweeted and did interviews claiming how the progressive platform actual insulated democrats from failure. the chart she presented were misleading and failed pretty much every fact check site. also ignored how inconvenient fact that the overt medicare for all folks were not running in the contested elections 'cross the country. were obvious suicide for a democrat running in rural iowa to champion medicare for all, but the progressive platform were nevertheless ammunition for republicans running against rural iowa democrats. aoc tries to turn reality on its head.

sorry you can't read all, but aoc has been extreme misleading... and if you haven't gone to fact check sites to see 4 pinocchios and pants on fire fact checks from the past year or less, then is 'cause you don't wanna look.

and am not saying the progressive platform doesn't deserve a seat at the table or is bad for the party. all am saying is that aoc is willing to use bad and misleading facts because she believes there are, "a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."  she is not such a person.

aoc needs learn moral right and factual accurate is hardly mutual exclusive, and her legitimacy is undercut everytime she ignores facts or purposeful misleads in an effort to promote what she believes is moral right. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chairchucker]

I'm honestly not that familiar with the fact checking websites you're referring to. A search for pants on fire got me to politifact, and when I searched AOC on that site, I saw a lot of hits for people lying about AOC, one hit that found that AOC's comments on Amazon were half true, and not much else.

Factcheck.org gave me similar results, mostly lies about AOC, not by her. AOC comments being fact checked are one hit where she needed to brush up on her FDR related history knowledge, the bad maths on the Pentagon/healthcare thing, her being wrong on unemployment statistics, and her and Bernie interpreting a Koch brothers study on Medicare for All. (The author of that study said it reflected a 'misunderstanding of my study'. There is reference to other figures that the author of that study says he doesn't think is realistic.

 

So over two years (seems to be about as far back as those sites go) we've got AOC being verifiably wrong like, 4 times?

[Chairchucker]

Frankly the quote "as to aoc, she is almost as much o' a fact checking nightmare as is trump." is more dishonest than anything said by AOC.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Chairchucker said:

Yeah it's pretty gross how she keeps advocating policies like 'paying workers enough to live off of' and 'not destroying the planet' and 'allowing poor people to have access to medical care'.

Advocating policies is the easy part.

Next bit might be a bit disconcerting for anyone who only knows NZ politics from Ardern hagiographies in The Garuniad/ NYT/ BBC etc...

AOC is at least from a distance pretty similar to our PM here, Jacinda Ardern- young, female, left wing progressive; new generation, hope for the party etc. Ardern won an absolute majority in a monocameral system under a proportional system; she can effectively do as she wishes for the next 3 years. Way more power than a US President limited only by the possibility of being voted out by her own party.

Like AOC she's talked extensively about lots and lots of wonderful goals, while seeking election and while not having any power to implement them. But it's only talk, she acts exactly the same as our previous long term PM, right wing John Key. Never thought I would say this but John Key was actually considerably better than Ardern because at least he never really pretended to be anything other than a stuffed shirt kicking economic and social cans down the road for his children to deal with, and he was willing to occasionally put political capital to work for things he personally believed in even if they were unpopular- like banning smacking despite a referendum result supporting keeping it. Instead, Ardern has seen child poverty increase, house affordability increase, living standards decrease and even more wealth disparity- and blamed it on everyone else but herself. And she won't do anything she personally believes in, if she thinks it won't be popular.

But now that she has a majority she can put all those wonderful ideas into practice, surely? El Oh El. No, it's rule out everything she said she believed in instead for yet more can kicking status quo stupidity and appealing to 'the centre', less than a month after an election. Gutless, supine, pathetic, weak, hypocrite, utter disappointment. I'm immensely glad I had the good sense and foresight not to vote for that- and I apologise to any glycerol based wobbly desserts in advance for the comparison- abject jelly this time.

Same thing will happen to AOC if she gets near power too. And she wouldn't even have the innate advantages to getting your agenda through of only having a single chamber government.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Zoraptor

[StupidSeal]

I wish Bernie was president 

[Gromnir]

31 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Frankly the quote "as to aoc, she is almost as much o' a fact checking nightmare as is trump." is more dishonest than anything said by AOC.

hardly

thefts were down 7%... homicides up +20%

the thing is, is fun to call out trump and is easy

Tapper: I Did Not Fact Check AOC "Mischaracterizing" Trump Because He Didn't Say The Truth Either

different treatment? why? in the more liberal media homesteads, they like aoc.

trump does fail fact checks more than aoc... but is 'cause of volume. on a per statement basis? dunno. we assume both is talking out their arse until we verify. as we noted earlier, the last time we heard aoc making public statements, she were clear misleading. only days ago. the democrats in rural parts o' this country who failed to win their elections would not have had a better showing if they embraced medicare for all. duh. trying to spin numbers to create an alternate reality is gaslighting whether is aoc doing or trump.

if you can't call out both when they do same bad thing, then you are no better.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 10, 2020 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

AOC is a fraud and a phony, the end. 

Yeah I'm a bit tired Europeans obsessing over American politics, almost as much as I am Americans looking to Europe as some kind of model for the future.  The same continent that produced Napoleon and Hitler shouldn't be an example.

The same continent also produced things like republics, democracy and a few other things. It's not all bad.

Edit: As for the rest of the world obsessing over American politics, you might as well face it, the US is a major trading (and military) partner for a large number of countries. What happens in Washington DC *does* matter as it can have severe (or positive) consequences to other countries. They may not have a vote, but you bet, they have a keen interest in it.

[ComradeYellow]

5 minutes ago, Gorth said:

The same continent also produced things like republics, democracy and a few other things. It's not all bad.

The same guy who compares P.O.S. Trump to Putin and Xi (both actually efficient leaders) is unsurprisingly implying that the U.S. should adopt white euro policies.  Next he'll say that we need a Hitler or a Napoleon to keep the filthy working class from achieving any kind of political power.  

Elitists.  Elitists never change.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Chairchucker said:

I'm honestly not that familiar with the fact checking websites you're referring to. A search for pants on fire got me to politifact, and when I searched AOC on that site, I saw a lot of hits for people lying about AOC, one hit that found that AOC's comments on Amazon were half true, and not much else.

Factcheck.org gave me similar results, mostly lies about AOC, not by her. AOC comments being fact checked are one hit where she needed to brush up on her FDR related history knowledge, the bad maths on the Pentagon/healthcare thing, her being wrong on unemployment statistics, and her and Bernie interpreting a Koch brothers study on Medicare for All. (The author of that study said it reflected a 'misunderstanding of my study'. There is reference to other figures that the author of that study says he doesn't think is realistic.

 

So over two years (seems to be about as far back as those sites go) we've got AOC being verifiably wrong like, 4 times?

Don't bother arguing further. Gromnir does not make good faith arguments, goal posts will be moved* and he'll insist you prove that his argument is incorrect, rather than him proving that his is correct. That's why he didn't cite any fact checking sites in the first place.

*'relatively as dishonest based on output' == first goal post shift. If you disproved that it will morph into something new.

[Gromnir]

14 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Don't bother arguing further. Gromnir does not make good faith arguments, goal posts will be moved* and he'll insist you prove that his argument is incorrect, rather than him proving that his is correct. That's why he didn't cite any fact checking sites in the first place.

*'relatively as dishonest based on output' == first goal post shift. If you disproved that it will morph into something new.

dear lord. the hypocrisy is thick. if trump, in defense o' his misleading statements and factual inaccuracies defended by observing it were more important to be moral right than factual accurate, would chairchucker or any other aoc fan let trump forget it?

*shakes head sadly*

some folks never change. you accuse others o' the sins for which you most frequent commit.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Chairchucker]

Guess it depends.

The fact that Trump lies so frequently (Forbes said 23 times a day in 2020, apparently Washington Post clocked him at 12 lies a day in his first year in office) means he's given a little bit less credit. It's easy to write off the occasional error as someone just not knowing the subject matter as well as they might, but if you continually obviously lie even when the facts are presented to you, that's a very different thing.

 

It's difficult to know for sure how one might respond if Trump's responses were 'my bad, the figures were off, but that's not really the point' because that's generally not how he responds, he just follows up with another lie.

[Gromnir]

12 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Guess it depends.

The fact that Trump lies so frequently (Forbes said 23 times a day in 2020, apparently Washington Post clocked him at 12 lies a day in his first year in office) means he's given a little bit less credit.

why should it matter? 

call out the wrong. if you don't call out a wrong when it is your guy, what does that make you?

this were the biggest single drop o' the day, and pretty much all red counties has exhausted everything but provisionals and those ballots waiting to be cured.

https://arizona.vote/ballot-progress.html

am suspecting yavapai will release a significant % o' their remaining 1300 tabulated this eve, and those should be serious in favor o' trump.

isn't over, but is a tough road for trump to gain enough with the remaining votes being mostly maricopa and pima. 

HA! Good Fun!