Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)

• Belly35

  

  O-Trap;1801336 wrote:Precisely.
  
  Makes me want to fucking move to Mauritius.

  bye. Dont let the door hit you in the ass
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1801455 wrote:Not really, and especially not really with the new terror phenomenon. We never had a 9/11, before 9/11, so 'past results' were certainly no indication of what occurred. Terrorists move about and take advantage of every lapse we give them. We know many are here already; we have foiled hundreds of attacks. But with the massive influx of the last couple of years, you can bet we are in for a rude awakening. We have tens of millions out of work, millions more pouring in, and zero leadership ----- great recipe.

  I didn't say the past was an exhaustive indicator. It is simply the best indicator.
  
  The alternative is to suggest that something is likely simply because we have zero precedent. We obviously know that's silly.
  
  We never had a 9/11, but we'd had terrorist attacks. Frankly, the '93 attack on the WTC appeared to be intended to do the kind of damage that the 9/11 attack did, so the signs were there.
  
  As for the influx, you do realize that we brought in more refugees during the early to mid '90s than we're bringing in now, right?
  
  When you refer to tens of millions out of work, are you referring to refugees? If so, I'd like to know where you heard that. The refugees in my neighborhood have 90 days to be self-sufficient, they start out in debt for their plane ticket here which they have to pay back, and they generally all have jobs. While I recognize that anecdotes are not grounds for providing evidence to support a point, it would give me reason to question the numbers you're citing.
  
  The other number is ridiculous. We don't have millions of refugees pouring it. Between 1975 and 2015, the US has brought in a TOTAL of just over 3.2 million refugees, only about 400,000 of which were from the Middle East[1]. So I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers. Mine are from the State Department's website.
  
  If you're referring to illegal immigrants, then we're not even having an apples-to-apples discussion, as I'm not speaking to illegal immigrants.
• O-Trap

  

  Belly35;1801478 wrote:bye. Dont let the door hit you in the ass

  Rest easy. I'd just leave an O-Trap-shaped hole in the wall.
  
  Less regulation. Lower end of cost of living in the US (comparable to Akron). Access to all the same first-world things you'd have here. Firearm laws are similar to the US (allegedly, they're rarely enforced, though).
  
  And then, there's the view:
  
  
  
  But I know. It's not 'Merica.
• FatHobbit

  

  gut;1801476 wrote:They directly elect the European Parliament every 5 years, with seats apportioned to member countries....so that works very much like our Congress. And I believe that is the primary legislative and approval body.
  
  Then there is a European Council consisting of the individual heads of state...not sure how that plays out, but something like our President (by committee). They elect their President of the Council (whom, I'm sure surprising to many, is NOT Angela Merkel).
  
  There is also a Council representing the member states. This functions somewhat like a Congressional committee and does a lot of the heavy lifting to propose stuff....but approval lays with the EC and EU Parliament.
  
  
  That's all I know from a few google searches. Suffice to say I think my comparing it to state rights here is very appropriate. Boils down to the UK being at the mercy of generally a simple majority of EU countries (it's weighted representation aside).
  
  Of course, it's a newer system and national sovereignty obviously a much bigger and stronger issue here than our states. Still, I generally feel the people of CA should have no say on how people in OH live when it bears no impact on the people of CA.

  Interesting. I was under the impression they did not vote for the eu leaders.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Fivethirtyeight released their election forecast today.
  So far, shows Clinton has between a 73-80% chance of winning.
  
  http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
  
  Interesting to play around with the data and numbers.
• fish82

  

  Funny to see Nate covering his ass with the "not a sure thing" stipulation...must still be stinging from his earlier "I guarantee he won't win the nomination" faceplant.
• O-Trap

  

  fish82;1801917 wrote:Funny to see Nate covering his ass with the "not a sure thing" stipulation...must still be stinging from his earlier "I guarantee he won't win the nomination" faceplant.

  Nate?
• superman

  O-Trap;1801933 wrote:Nate?

  Nate Silver. The liberal hack that runs 538.
  
  http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  fish82;1801917 wrote:Funny to see Nate covering his ass with the "not a sure thing" stipulation...must still be stinging from his earlier "I guarantee he won't win the nomination" faceplant.

  Yeah, he wrote a long piece in May about how he got Trump wrong. Pretty interesting to read.
  

  superman;1801984 wrote:Nate Silver. The liberal hack that runs 538.
  
  http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/

  Sure, he may lean left, but he usually lets his data speak for itself. He did get every state right in 2008 and 2012. So, his track record is still way better than most pundits. And, actually once Iowa happened and the polls all moved to Trump, 538 changed the projections and were correct on most of the primary results.
  His data is also aggregate polling data, and is a model. Anyone that has taken a stats class knows models are just that models. But, the more data you have, the more likely the model is correct.
  Simple stats.
  
  As he has been money since 2008, to me, he the best indicator of how the polls are looking.
  (I'll also note, I use their site for baseball picks, and I am about 75% for the year.)
• superman

  Dude, you will spin anything. Lulz.
• Heretic

  

  superman;1802011 wrote:Dude, you will spin anything. Lulz.

  FACTS R SPIN LULZ
• like_that

  

  Heretic;1802012 wrote:FACTS R SPIN LULZ

  In his defense ptown will be an apologist and spin anything, but Nate Silver def uses data that is hard to argue.
• O-Trap

  

  like_that;1802016 wrote:In his defense ptown will be an apologist and spin anything, but Nate Silver def uses data that is hard to argue.

  The guy's track record lends quite a bit of credibility. You're right. Definitely hard to argue.
• Heretic

  

  like_that;1802016 wrote:In his defense ptown will be an apologist and spin anything, but Nate Silver def uses data that is hard to argue.

  I'll agree with that; I just think it's generally mindless to look at a person's personal political leanings and, if they differ from yours, automatically dismiss them as a hack. That's the sort of stupidity that's played a big role in why we're so divisive about this stuff today.
  
  As to what was said about Silver not predicting Trump, to me, that's a "Well, duh" issue. When things first started, I doubt anyone took Trump that seriously until his message resonated and he gained momentum and then never really lost it. It really seemed that as he rose to the top, everyone from pundits to other candidates were flabbergasted and completely unsure of what was happening. About the only criticism one could reasonably have is that, in a way (and to be fair, there is a lot of "hindsight is 20/20" with this), you could predict that with Obama's rise in '08. Obama had the D base and minorities, obviously, and then added to it with his charisma and a lot of ultimately empty words that sounded really good in soundbites to capture the "middle-of-the-road" voters, as well as a lot of young voters. Trump uses a lot of ultimately empty words, too, but goes after the disenfranchised middle/lower class white guy and has the charisma to get them fired up in much the same way, which led to a lot of wins over the more "stale, suit-and-tie-guy" establishment candidates. YES WE CAN = MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN and so on.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Heretic;1802020 wrote:About the only criticism one could reasonably have is that, in a way (and to be fair, there is a lot of "hindsight is 20/20" with this), you could predict that with Obama's rise in '08. Obama had the D base and minorities, obviously, and then added to it with his charisma and a lot of ultimately empty words that sounded really good in soundbites to capture the "middle-of-the-road" voters, as well as a lot of young voters. Trump uses a lot of ultimately empty words, too, but goes after the disenfranchised middle/lower class white guy and has the charisma to get them fired up in much the same way, which led to a lot of wins over the more "stale, suit-and-tie-guy" establishment candidates. YES WE CAN = MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN and so on.

  Nailed it.
  
  Good God...
• fish82

  

  Heretic;1802020 wrote:I'll agree with that; I just think it's generally mindless to look at a person's personal political leanings and, if they differ from yours, automatically dismiss them as a hack. That's the sort of stupidity that's played a big role in why we're so divisive about this stuff today.
  
  As to what was said about Silver not predicting Trump, to me, that's a "Well, duh" issue. When things first started, I doubt anyone took Trump that seriously until his message resonated and he gained momentum and then never really lost it. It really seemed that as he rose to the top, everyone from pundits to other candidates were flabbergasted and completely unsure of what was happening. About the only criticism one could reasonably have is that, in a way (and to be fair, there is a lot of "hindsight is 20/20" with this), you could predict that with Obama's rise in '08. Obama had the D base and minorities, obviously, and then added to it with his charisma and a lot of ultimately empty words that sounded really good in soundbites to capture the "middle-of-the-road" voters, as well as a lot of young voters. Trump uses a lot of ultimately empty words, too, but goes after the disenfranchised middle/lower class white guy and has the charisma to get them fired up in much the same way, which led to a lot of wins over the more "stale, suit-and-tie-guy" establishment candidates. YES WE CAN = MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN and so on.

  FWIW, Ann Coulter called Trump as the nominee almost a year ago.
• Heretic

  

  fish82;1802163 wrote:FWIW, Ann Coulter called Trump as the nominee almost a year ago.

  I didn't know that, but I can see it. Her whole career has been based on tapping into the "angry white" demographic, so I can believe she'd be able to properly estimate their impact, especially in such an unfocused primary season with so many candidates, leading to him being the only one with a large and focused supported base.
  
  EDIT: Which is the sort of thing that a stat guru would likely have trouble predicting.
• QuakerOats

  As Brexit demonstrated, there are millions of people who are sick and tired of being ruled by, effectively, un-elected bureaucrats. Tens of millions of Americans are in the same boat; doing anything they can do to break away from the overreach and the disaster that Washington DC has become, is what matters most. If Trump is the closest thing they can find to fit the bill, so be it.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/blogarticle/3567983/Blog/Brexit-A-Revolt-Against-the-Globalization-of-Americanization.html?LS=EMS1292178&utm_medium=email%20alerts&utm_campaign=Asset%20Management%20Daily%202013&utm_content=2016_07_06&utm_source=ems%20email#.V30Tn9QrIsY
• Automatik

  

  QuakerOats;1802382 wrote:As Brexit demonstrated, there are millions of people who are sick and tired of being ruled by, effectively, un-elected bureaucrats. Tens of millions of Americans are in the same boat; doing anything they can do to break away from the overreach and the disaster that Washington DC has become, is what matters most. If Trump is the closest thing they can find to fit the bill, so be it.

  Like here...the Brexit also showed that millions of people don't know what the fuck is actually going on.
• gut

  Automatik;1802569 wrote:Like here...the Brexit also showed that millions of people don't know what the fuck is actually going on.

  Meaning what exactly?
• QuakerOats

  Automatik;1802569 wrote:Like here...the Brexit also showed that millions of people don't know what the fuck is actually going on.

  
  Indeed they do; you best read the article just posted from Institutional Investor.
• Automatik

  

  gut;1802570 wrote:Meaning what exactly?

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/
• Belly35

  

  My friend and former design engineer from the UK .. We talk on skype weekly, we have a project coming up with General Dynamics. He vote for the exit of the UK out of Europian control. I was will to lost some of his pension, interest on saving and what ever else to be free from socialistic government control. The next thing is he wants his freedom to own and buy weapons to protect himself... Get a the idea Amercia they want what we have freedom ... let not lose what others wants Freedom
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Wat!?