US Elections 2016

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Interesting analysis from Nate Silver based on the current info on hand:

 

40 percent chance of President Clinton with a Democratic Senate.

 

30 percent chance of Clinton with a Republican Senate.

 

20 percent chance of President Trump (probably with a Republican Senate).

 

10 percent chance of Cruz, John Kasich or some other Republican.

 

And more...

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-could-do-a-lot-worse-than-merrick-garland-under-president-clinton-or-president-trump/

I think Nate Silver is wrong. Here are MY odds:

 

10 percent chance of President Hillary with Democratic Senate

 

5 percent chance of President Hillary with Republican Senate

 

84.5 Percent chance of President Trump with Republican Senate

 

0.5 Percent chance of some other republican

Nah. Nate's made me some decent money in fantasy baseball and Vegas in general. I'll go with his picks.

 

 

They aren't his picks (or at least he didn't come up with the numbers himself). They're from a site called predictwise, which less than two months ago was predicting Rubio had a 55% chance to win the nomination. It's a totally BS fluff site that lacks credible use. As Nate is citing it as if it's credible, he is a moron. Nate isn't really known for making money on fantasy baseball or Vegas, he's known for selling people on his BS that he can make them money.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Leferd]

Lols. Don't know where you're getting your info but I'm 100% positive I made money on fantasy baseball and betting in Las Vegas directly because of Nate Silver.

[Leferd]

Also, if you don't believe in the power and predictive capability of the betting markets, that's more $$ for me.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm going back to my original prediction that if Hilzilla wins Republicans will hurry up and approve Garland.

[Guard Dog]

I don't know where you guys get the idea Garland is some kind of moderate. He is a staunch opponent of the 2nd, 5th & 10th Amendments and he has some strange ideas about what Executive power and the Necessary & Proper clause of Article I is all about. He is as anti-liberty and left wing as any of the four of the liberal bloc we currently have. If he ends up on the court (and some of the Republicans are already getting weak-kneed about opposing him) it will be a devastating blow to Americans who value the sanctity of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and limitations it places on the government.

 

In other words, not just no but hell no.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't know where you guys get the idea Garland is some kind of moderate.

He's "tough on crime", is fine with indefinite GITMO detention, and signed the papers allowing for SuperPacs. Other than union support and guns he's a NeoCon in the vein of most elected republicans.

 

He is as anti-liberty and corporate shill as any of the justices we currently have or have had the last few decades.

FTFY

[Guard Dog]

 

 he's a NeoCon in the vein of most elected republicans.

In his opinions of executive power yes. That is not a good thing.

[Valsuelm]

Garland isn't a 'moderate' by any means. He's only being packaged that way to sell him. Hillary's nominees aren't like to be any worse than Obama's (you really can't get much worse than Garland (if you're going to go the modern traditional route and nominate a Federal Judge that is)), even if she herself is worse than he. The whole 'we gotta get someone in there before Hillary gives us someone worse' argument is total BS false dichotomy designed to get Obama's creature in there.

That said, the Republicans are decently likely to ultimately approve him Hillary or no, as the 'leadership' is anything but leadership, and the average Republican on the hill may as well be a Democrat. Almost all of them are spineless shill sellouts. That the people who have voted for them by and large feel unrepresented is arguably reason #1 why Trump is as popular as he is to begin with (and on the flip side of the aisle, also arguably the #1 reason Sanders is as popular as he is to begin with). I will sincerely and probably pleasantly be surprised if the Republicans (and perhaps even some Dems) hold out on approving a new member of the SCOTUS until after a new president is in office.
 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

he's a NeoCon in the vein of most elected republicans.

In his opinions of executive power yes. That is not a good thing.

 

I didn't say it was.

 

Do you honestly expect anything else to be nominated? Hillary is a NeoCon funded by Wall Street and so is Cruz, Donald "shut down the internet" Trump doesn't give two ****s about liberty, and anyone who has any opposition to invasions of privacy or trampling personal freedoms is not going to be nominated by the big two parties this election cycle and we've got a few Justices ready to fall over dead any moment.

[Enoch]

I don't know where you guys get the idea Garland is some kind of moderate. He is a staunch opponent of the 2nd, 5th & 10th Amendments and he has some strange ideas about what Executive power and the Necessary & Proper clause of Article I is all about. He is as anti-liberty and left wing as any of the four of the liberal bloc we currently have. If he ends up on the court (and some of the Republicans are already getting weak-kneed about opposing him) it will be a devastating blow to Americans who value the sanctity of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and limitations it places on the government.

 

In other words, not just no but hell no.

 

Not sure what you mean regarding the 5th & 10th amendments, but the gun-rights argument against Garland is pretty laughable.  He hasn't seen any significant 2nd amendment cases.  He wasn't on the panel that decided the case that became Heller, but because he voted for en banc rehearing, some have implied that this means he disagreed with the holding.  (Of note, conservative favorite A. Raymond Randolph also voted for re-hearing of that case.)  And, yeah, he was on the panel that decided NRA v. Reno, but that was a statutory construction case whose only connection to the 2nd Amendment is that it was titled "NRA v. Reno." 

 

Basically, some oppo-research hatchet shop came up with smears for all of the likely "short list" names, and this was the best thing they could hang on Garland.  It's weak. 

[Calax]

[Meshugger]

I think you guys should remember that trying to use a false dichotomoties like "left-right", "liberty-slavery", "corperate hack-government hack" has no bearing in todays society. What really matters is representation on a superficial level and how it makes you feel, like the good SJWs that you are. So tell, how does it feel when it looks like there's 4 catholics, 4 jews and only one protestant that represents the supreme court? Isn't that, like, totally problematic?

[Valsuelm]

I think you guys should remember that trying to use a false dichotomoties like "left-right", "liberty-slavery", "corperate hack-government hack" has no bearing in todays society. What really matters is representation on a superficial level and how it makes you feel, like the good SJWs that you are. So tell, how does it feel when it looks like there's 4 catholics, 4 jews and only one protestant that represents the supreme court? Isn't that, like, totally problematic?

 

There's actually not a single Protestant on the court....

 

It's currently 5 Catholics and 3 Jews. Before Scalia shuffled off the mortal coiil it was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews.

 

Obama wants to make it 5 Catholics and 4 Jews, in a nation founded by almost exclusively by Protestants.

 

It's worth noting that every single member of the current SCOTUS, including the late Scalia, replaced a Protestant.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Rostere]

At least this is some good news.

 

So polls say that Bernie is more electable than Hillary, he is more trustworthy leading the military (among ALL American voters!), yet people still vote for Hillary. Truly astounding...

[Meshugger]

...back in the day, the same support from the military came to Ron Paul. The resemblence in how things turn out, but now on the left side of things, is almost uncanny; well except for Bernie getting more delegates (but not enough).

[Namutree]

At least this is some good news.

 

So polls say that Bernie is more electable than Hillary, he is more trustworthy leading the military (among ALL American voters!), yet people still vote for Hillary. Truly astounding...

Amazing after Hillary's role as secretary of state should leave absolutely no confidence what-so-ever in her ability to lead the military that she got even 10%. Combine that with the email situation which shows that she is dangerously uninformed about modern technology, and her poor track record of understanding the unintended consequences of military intervention (Iraq for example). It really is amazing that 31% people would trust her with something that even casual research on her should show she is definitely not able to handle.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Namutree

[Valsuelm]

At least this is some good news.

 

So polls say that Bernie is more electable than Hillary, he is more trustworthy leading the military (among ALL American voters!), yet people still vote for Hillary. Truly astounding...

 

That's somewhat of a meaningless poll, even if accurate, which it more than likely isn't. It's also somewhat misleading (as many polls are). Here's the data: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/16/Trump-poll.pdf (interesting how it's named 'Trump-poll').

 

 

...back in the day, the same support from the military came to Ron Paul. The resemblence in how things turn out, but now on the left side of things, is almost uncanny; well except for Bernie getting more delegates (but not enough).

 

That first poll isn't talking about military support for the candidates. Here's how the military currently sees the candidates.

[Rostere]

 

At least this is some good news.

 

So polls say that Bernie is more electable than Hillary, he is more trustworthy leading the military (among ALL American voters!), yet people still vote for Hillary. Truly astounding...

Amazing after Hillary's role as secretary of state should leave absolutely no confidence what-so-ever in her ability to lead the military that she got even 10%. Combine that with the email situation which shows that she is dangerously uninformed about modern technology, and her poor track record of understanding the unintended consequences of military intervention (Iraq for example). It really is amazing that 31% people would trust her with something that even casual research on her should show she is definitely not able to handle.

 

Literally the first thing I thought when I heard of Hillary's email server was that her staff had been infiltrated with agents of a foreign country who wants to monitor her conversations, and made the recommendation of the current arrangement. Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing. It's a pity the public in general also is very unknowledgeable on these matters. But as I understand things you can be convicted of espionage if you are criminally incompetent, no intent is needed.

[Meshugger]

P-p-please notice her.

 

 

I-i-it's not like i her or anything, baka!

Edited March 17, 2016 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Looks like some in Japan don't like Trump. Does this mean he knocks down buildings and eats people over there?

[Longknife]

some

 

Understatement of the year, dude doesn't have a single fan outside the USA.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Longknife

[Gfted1]

Heh, looks like a riff on Attack on Titan.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Heh, looks like a riff on Attack on Titan.

It is, which is why I made the joke about eating people and destroying buildings. Japan seems pretty obsessed with that sort of thing is Godzilla is any indication.

[Valsuelm]

Trumpzilla

 

Looks like some in Japan don't like Trump. Does this mean he knocks down buildings and eats people over there?

 

I can't read what the cartoon says, but knowing what I know of Japanese pop culture and cartoons, that cartoon very well might be one friendly to Trump. Japanese cartoons and pop culture can be a tad weird by most western standards if you haven't noticed.

 

If anyone here can do it though, a legit translation would no doubt be amusing.

[Meshugger]

 

Heh, looks like a riff on Attack on Titan.

It is, which is why I made the joke about eating people and destroying buildings. Japan seems pretty obsessed with that sort of thing is Godzilla is any indication.

 

 

I never understood the appeal of that series, but Trump sure looks like one of them.