1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to give one caveat.

Once Trump wins, he might be persuaded by his intimates to allow the women proven to be liars to issue an apology and let the matter go. The upside for him would be using this gesture as a form of showing his benevolent nature to the world.

 

Michael

Like any good king would do.

--Brant

Just as with "Lock her up!" there will be no opportunity to act.

Obama will pardon all the filthy low-lifes.

Trump deserves credit here for being nice - he is simply helping O complete the list, ensuring they all get their much-needed pardons.

54 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Like any good king would do.

Brant,

We perceive kings differently.

Kings don't go to court. They rule.

In your conception, kings seem to be more wimpy.

Michael

On 10/16/2016 at 5:55 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Someone not asking you hasn't stopped you--here.

--Brant

which is A-Okay by me

Constitutional Monarchs do not rule.  They govern.

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

17 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to give one caveat.

Once Trump wins, he might be persuaded by his intimates to allow the women proven to be liars to issue an apology and let the matter go. The upside for him would be using this gesture as a form of showing his benevolent nature to the world.

Like any good king would do.

We perceive kings differently.

Kings don't go to court. They rule.

I live under a so-called 'constitutional monarchy."  Our King is a Queen. She does not rule, she does not govern, she doesn't visit as much as she could. She 'reigns' in the abstract, subject to our Canadian constitution.  Her vice-regal representative here, who acts as Head of State when she is not on the ground, our Governor-General has a signature.  Once applied to a bill that has passed Parliament, that signature gives what we call Royal Assent.  The law is promulgated, gazetted, official. 

As for Kings/Queens not going to court, all criminal cases pit the Crown against persons or legal entities. The charges are filed under the handy header "Regina v Somebody." R stands for Regina. Regina stands for the queen. The prosecution acts in the name of the Crown.

Anyhow, in the modern world, there are few Kings and Queens with untrammeled power. The stand-outs are Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan ... where ultimate power is not necessarily contingent on an assembly of democratic representatives. 

Back to Gonna Sue the Bitches, the issue is not whether or not any individual like Mr Trump has absolute right  to sue whomever he wants to. That is a given.  The issue for me is the political benefit. I believe this insistence on vengeance degrades Trump's appeal.  

In any case, should Mr Trump become President-elect, it is my belief that he will not bring suits against lying bitches once sworn in,  I don't see him wasting any time on his once he has won office.  There is no up-side to becoming embroiled in the discovery process for a President.

Now, Michael, it seems like you are on the Trump Train wherever it goes. Your heart is fixed on victory for the GOP candidate. I just don't understand how you can be so certain that all the bitches are lying, that it is good political theatre to threaten them with retaliation once in office.

21 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

The issue for me is the political benefit. I believe this insistence on vengeance degrades Trump's appeal.

William,

But it sure as hell shuts up the dubious attackers.

All Gloria Allred can muster nowadays is a porn star--seriously, a porn star--who claims she was offended by unproven sexual advances and offer of money from Trump.

That, at this moment in the election, is a huge political gain for Trump. After the election, it will probably help keep order in the henhouse for those who have more ambition than rationality...

Michael

26 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I just don't understand how you can be so certain that all the bitches are lying, that it is good political theatre to threaten them with retaliation once in office.

William,

And I bet WikiLeaks causes you enormous cognitive dissonance, not about the women, but about the political/cultural story you want held in place.

btw - I don't know if all the women are lying. I do know that on close examination (which is already in the mainstream press), too many of their stories are falling apart to make this a thing anymore.

Except for people who don't believe that particular knock-out blow didn't work. So they keep trying weaker punches of the same kind while leaving their chin exposed. And those poor fools don't even see the haymaker that is now coming right at them, even when it's been announced.

Michael

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And I bet WikiLeaks causes you enormous cognitive dissonance [...] about the political/cultural story you want held in place.

The story I want held in place?  I want stories that hew closest to reality, as close as we can get. I appreciate it when I get to work with real hard minds about aspects of story that aren't always clear. I like that when I do hold a position through bias -- through inattention, laziness or sloppy cognitive housekeeping or failure/error -- I like that I can be corrected.

A kind of  'shared story' or shared ground is part of the culture here at OL. We have had long experience with reason, argument, weaknesses in epistemology, robust and weak approaches to inquiry. As you know from my repeated pot-banging about it, I think the thing that I share with OLers of all stripes is a commitment to reason. I do believe that reality is 'knowable' by the human mind, and that a rational mind fully deployed is a great thing, that our Reason provides us our greatest toolkit.

We have a lot in common even if only on that commitment. It is a lot of hard slogging work, reason.  Mistakes are made. I make mistakes. Key disagreements are met, understood, and sometimes bridged.

If you are asking me what I believe, or what are my cogitations upon Wikileaks, Wikileaks then, Wikileaks now, particular Wikileaks, please ask. If you want to presume the fixity of my wrong story, then you can develop an argument, using evidence that my understanding of Wikileaks is not to be trusted, and sustain a line of interesting contentions about me re Wikileaks. 

I am willing to follow down that avenue, if you like. I would ask you, before you put money down on your bet, to figure out which two 'truthy' but contradictory thoughts or beliefs I hold, identify which two mismatching thoughts cause me "enormous" conflict in my mind.

You know what I want, Michael.

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I would ask you, before you put money down on your bet, to figure out which two 'truthy' but contradictory thoughts or beliefs I hold, identify which two mismatching thoughts cause me "enormous" conflict in my mind.

You know what I want, Michael.

William,

Hell, that's easy.

Idea No. 1: I (William) am innately superior to all the laughable dimwitted human cattle out there. I don't have to do anything but be me to be superior to them: before, now and forever.

Idea No. 2: I (William) use reason to judge facts and people (including myself and even laughable dimwitted human cattle). I use objective criteria when judging right and wrong, superior and inferior, etc.

Helpfully, 

Michael

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The story I want held in place?  I want stories that hew closest to reality, as close as we can get. I appreciate it when I get to work with real hard minds about aspects of story that aren't always clear. I like that when I do hold a position through bias -- through inattention, laziness or sloppy cognitive housekeeping or failure/error -- I like that I can be corrected.

A kind of  'shared story' or shared ground is part of the culture here at OL. We have had long experience with reason, argument, weaknesses in epistemology, robust and weak approaches to inquiry. As you know from my repeated pot-banging about it, I think the thing that I share with OLers of all stripes is a commitment to reason. I do believe that reality is 'knowable' by the human mind, and that a rational mind fully deployed is a great thing, that our Reason provides us our greatest toolkit.

We have a lot in common even if only on that commitment. It is a lot of hard slogging work, reason.  Mistakes are made. I make mistakes. Key disagreements are met, understood, and sometimes bridged.

If you are asking me what I believe, or what are my cogitations upon Wikileaks, Wikileaks then, Wikileaks now, particular Wikileaks, please ask. If you want to presume the fixity of my wrong story, then you can develop an argument, using evidence that my understanding of Wikileaks is not to be trusted, and sustain a line of interesting contentions about me re Wikileaks. 

I am willing to follow down that avenue, if you like. I would ask you, before you put money down on your bet, to figure out which two 'truthy' but contradictory thoughts or beliefs I hold, identify which two mismatching thoughts cause me "enormous" conflict in my mind.

You know what I want, Michael.

Wow! Confirmation! You got it!

Reason? We don't have any reasons! I don't have to show you any stinkin' "reasons"!

--Brant

Damnit!--here come the Reasonalies! Vamanos muchachos!

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I live under a so-called 'constitutional monarchy."  Our King is a Queen. She does not rule, she does not govern, she doesn't visit as much as she could. She 'reigns' in the abstract, subject to our Canadian constitution.  Her vice-regal representative here, who acts as Head of State when she is not on the ground, our Governor-General has a signature.  Once applied to a bill that has passed Parliament, that signature gives what we call Royal Assent.  The law is promulgated, gazetted, official. 

As for Kings/Queens not going to court, all criminal cases pit the Crown against persons or legal entities. The charges are filed under the handy header "Regina v Somebody." R stands for Regina. Regina stands for the queen. The prosecution acts in the name of the Crown.

Anyhow, in the modern world, there are few Kings and Queens with untrammeled power. The stand-outs are Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan ... where ultimate power is not necessarily contingent on an assembly of democratic representatives. 

Back to Gonna Sue the Bitches, the issue is not whether or not any individual like Mr Trump has absolute right  to sue whomever he wants to. That is a given.  The issue for me is the political benefit. I believe this insistence on vengeance degrades Trump's appeal.  

In any case, should Mr Trump become President-elect, it is my belief that he will not bring suits against lying bitches once sworn in,  I don't see him wasting any time on his once he has won office.  There is no up-side to becoming embroiled in the discovery process for a President.

Now, Michael, it seems like you are on the Trump Train wherever it goes. Your heart is fixed on victory for the GOP candidate. I just don't understand how you can be so certain that all the bitches are lying, that it is good political theatre to threaten them with retaliation once in office.

I don't see a President-Elect suing. I do see that if he isn't elected. The broader question is whether he visits his tendency to fascist impulses to the office with him. I think he has grown and will keep growing and will be restrained by counsel and staff. He delegates, BTW, a lot. The true fascists are the the Democrat elites. (The Republican elites are Goodfellows.) For him it's a carbuncle. Barry Goldwater sued successfully after the 1964 campaign in spite of being a public figure.

--Brant

34 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Hell, that's easy.

Idea No. 1: I (William) am innately superior to all the laughable dimwitted human cattle out there. I don't have to do anything but be me to be superior to them: before, now and forever.

Idea No. 2: I (William) use reason to judge facts and people (including myself and even laughable dimwitted human cattle). I use objective criteria when judging right and wrong, superior and inferior, etc.

   

Helpfully, 

Michael

Well--I thought you noticed--he is very good.

--Brant

at least

But, can he talk to cab drivers?

--Driven

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well--I thought you noticed--he is very good.

--Brant

at least

Brant,

I love William, warts and all.

The problem is me.

I'm aspie enough to bluntly tell the truth when asked.

Michael

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

I love William, warts and all.

The problem is me.

I'm aspie enough to bluntly tell the truth when asked.

Michael

Warts?

--Brant

This should have maybe gone in the Nate Silver thread, but it offers scenarios for win/loss as per the opening topic. This is from the article "You’ll Likely Be Reading One Of These 5 Articles The Day After The Election."  It is the last and most fun for a Trump supporter, and if it is true, i will eat crow.

Quote

5. Trump shocks the world

In a stunning rebuke of elites, Donald Trump edged out Hillary Clinton for the presidency last night, jolting world markets and sending shock waves across a beleaguered political establishment. Trump captured 294 electoral votes, flipping Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to the GOP column. With millions of votes left to tabulate in California and New York, Clinton was on track to win a worthless popular vote plurality.

After one of the worst polling misses of all time, election “forecasters” and experts were left scratching their heads. Trump credited his “Silent Majority” for swarming polling places and himself for leading a blue-collar revolution. Indeed, turnout among whites without a college degree surged from 55 percent in 2012 to 64 percent in 2016, and Trump carried them by 35 percentage points. Validating the “shy Trump voter” theory, Trump defied expectations by nearly tying Clinton among whites with a college degree.

Democrats faulted third-party “spoilers” and a lack of enthusiasm among their base for Clinton’s loss. Latinos voted for Clinton by 47 percentage points, but their turnout barely increased over 2012. Meanwhile, African-American turnout fell to 56 percent from 63 percent four years ago. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Independent Evan McMullin combined for 11 percent, severely eating into Clinton’s margin among millennials.

Down ballot, Republicans easily held the Senate, sweeping all seven races rated as “toss-ups” by the Cook Political Report for a 53-to-47 seat majority — just one seat down from their current tally after losing seats in Illinois and Wisconsin and gaining Nevada. Democrats gained a paltry five House seats, leaving Speaker Paul Ryan with a solid 242-to-193 majority and stirring talk among disappointed Democrats that it’s time for fresh leadership to replace Nancy Pelosi.

Several high-ranking Democrats, haunted by the prospect of reliving their 2000 nightmare and noting that Trump was on track to receive fewer than 45 percent of all votes cast, called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Meanwhile, in his victory speech, Trump immediately praised the integrity of the vote, congratulating state and local officials on their “tremendous” work to ensure a fraud-free election.

39 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

This should have maybe gone in the Nate Silver thread, but it offers scenarios for win/loss as per the opening topic. This is from the article "You’ll Likely Be Reading One Of These 5 Articles The Day After The Election."  It is the last and most fun for a Trump supporter, and if it is true, i will eat crow.

 

Is this fiction or fantasy?  I will have to see the outcome with my own eyes before I accept it as fact.

20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This is from the article "You’ll Likely Be Reading One Of These 5 Articles The Day After The Election."  It is the last and most fun for a Trump supporter, and if it is true, i will eat crow.

 

Is this fiction or fantasy?  I will have to see the outcome with my own eyes before I accept it as fact.

In the meantime, you can click the link and review the other four Day-After scenarios. They are like the opening topic in the thread here, an opportunity to think through the underpinnings of a victory/loss.

On 10/15/2016 at 6:17 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1. Go to YouTube and type the following in the search field (including quote marks): 

"Donald Trump"

2. Up to the left, there is a little rectangular button called "Filters." Click on it and a drop-down menu will open.

3. Under "Upload date," click on the word: "Today." The drop-down menu will close.

4. Click on "Filters" again to open it again, then under "Sort by," click on: "View count." The drop-down menu will close.

Now you will see the most popular videos on YouTube for the keyword "Donald Trump" for the last 24 hours.

On 10/23/2016 at 5:37 PM, Brant Gaede said:

The broader question is whether he visits his tendency to fascist impulses to the office with him. I think he has grown and will keep growing and will be restrained by counsel and staff. He delegates, BTW, a lot.

He may be 'restrained' by counsel, and staff.  There's a fresh story out today by Gabriel Sherman in New York magazine. He has talked to more staff and counsellors than you or I,  or so he says.  I don't know guite what to make of the story: Final Days

Quote

“I’m on the battlefield right now, which is amazing,” Donald Trump said as he surveyed the Gettysburg National Military Park. “When you talk about historic, this is the whole ballgame.” It was the afternoon of October 22, and Trump was speaking by phone shortly after delivering a speech at the place where Lincoln pledged to unite a divided country. Trump had used the same location to pledge lawsuits against the women accusing him of grabbing them by the pussy. “I feel really good,” Trump continued, making his way to the motorcade to leave for the campaign’s next rally, in Virginia. “We had three polls this week that came out where we’re No. 1. I think we’re going to have a very big surprise in store for a lot of people.”

Even given the October surprise of the FBI’s reviewing a new batch of emails that may be related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server, Trump still faces difficult odds. But he is ending the race much as he got into it: not worrying too much about the future and not listening to any of the advisers around him. In recent weeks, I spoke with more than two dozen current and former Trump advisers, friends, and senior Republicans officials, many of whom would speak only off the record given that the campaign is not yet over. What they described was an unmanageable candidate who still does not fully understand the power of the movement he has tapped into, who can’t see that it is larger than himself.

“I got really mad at him the other day,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told me. “He said, ‘I think we’ll win, and if not, that’s okay too. And I said, ‘It’s not okay! You can’t say that! Your dry-cleaning bill is like the annual salaries of the people who came to your rallies, and they believe in you!’ ”

Here is a plausible victory map for Donald Trump:

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

I think he'll do a little better if he wins. I want him to crush her and maybe he will, but that's just my alligator brain.

--Brant

or wishful thinking

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I think he'll do a little better if he wins. I want him to crush her and maybe he will, but that's just my alligator brain.

--Brant

or wishful thinking

I tried to be realistic, consult the polls and give him an advantage (a Comey effect). From my look at state numbers today, which may have at least an initial 'effect,' Trump is ahead in Utah, Florida, North Carolina ... this could be either Comey or  coming home to Daddy. Either way, I wouldn't change my Trump win map. I mean, he is a ways away from taking Pennsylvania and Virginia by my reckoning.

A lot of the votes are 'in' in this election. For example, Florida has collected nearly 40% of its expected final numbers. An odd effect of your curious systems, where party-affiliation is being 'registered' in public records, and where names on the voter's list are checked off as mail-in ballots and voting in person, is that rule-of-thumb estimates of  where the voting currently stands is possible. From everything I gather, Florida is gonna Florida' (per Steve Schale).

Meaning, tight tight tight.  The GOP machine and the Democratic machine trying to get every last mail-in ballot off the kitchen counter and into the county.  Every last 'low propensity' voter coaxed off the couch. Every last human resource pitched into electoral battle.

A squeaker. 

In any case, my 270towin map gave Florida to Trump. I also gave him New Hampshire and half of Maine.  To get to the crushing stage we will see signs of movement : ie, if he solidifies the GOP turnout in Nevada and Arizona, then he may also beat the Democrat turnout in say, Colorado New Mexico and Pennsylvania.  Here I would take a leaf from the Trump side and explain that as 'hidden' Trump voters who had not been 'captured' in polling voter intentions.  Or maybe a last-minute home to Daddy move amongst the puny undecided.

What makes this election so exciting right now is the nail-biting uncertainty.  Until the Comey sandwich (which filling everyone can imagine even if unable to taste it) the Trend was tightening, with Clinton still on top in national and swing-state polls. 

Side-note: for the second day in a row, Mr Trump is throwing shade on the 'mail-in' aspect of the Colorado election system. He has picked a fight with the Republican in Colorado in charge of the state system, and on down the line of equally-GOP elected and volunteer officials. 

That BS about a hidden hinkiness in Colorado could perhaps effect that race, maybe in unforeseen ways. I will be putting up some detail in the Rigging thread.  Right now, I just don't see why he is doing this in Colorado. Whether you go in person to a voting centre and void your mail-in ballot on the kitchen counter or mail in the freaking ballot, you are still putting the ballot in the same state/county "machine" (in this case electronic optical scanners).

I don't understand this ploy in Colorado. It is just setting the scene for an 'unclean' Colorado result should he fall short of victory. 

Here he is on two consecutive days, speaking to the crowd and to the media liars in the pen at the back.  And to his millions of followers and supporters at the Youtube sites that have recorded every one of his public rallies from live feeds.

I wish he would shut the fuck up with this kind of talk. It is a non-starter in Colorado, among those who know something about the integrity and security of the balloting. It appeals to fear and to ignorance and to suspicion -- without evidence. He has pissed off a lot of people who work hard to ensure clean elections. Ignorant ramblings about mail-in offer a paranoid's eye view of Colorado.  This is not a leader of the rational forces.

Do you think this man would 'obey' the voice of the people, accept the collected verdicts, honorably bow to certified results? 

On 10/30/2016 at 2:36 PM, william.scherk said:

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

I am calling Florida for Trump. I know it's early, with only 40-odd percent of the vote in (via vote-by-mail, or in-person early voting), but the signs of a squeaker are there:  a tonne of attention from both campaigns and respective parties, fearsome GOTV efforts by some very capable machines, and a suite of polling results "just in" -- along with some excellent in-the-weeds reporting of wonk-fest details.

I think all the signs and portents are for a very close race. I hope not as close as 2000, because recounts take time and can become political footballs. Especially if all the other state electoral votes are exactly like the map above. Ai yai yai, as they say. I give the state to Trump and hope the November 8 results don't trigger an automatic recount. 

I think we can also call Arizona, and set it aside with Florida as more likely than not to be Trumpable. Here I admit to putting a slight thumb weight on the mental scales, for Mr Trump.

Here is another creepy/wonderful forecast: what if Evan McMullin squeaks ahead of both Clinton and Trump in Utah? He is currently two points behind. If you take the six Nevada electoral college votes and withdraw them from the Trump column, you get a mess:

268/264/6

So, I give advantage to Trump in my imagination, forestalling a fantasy situation with a House of Representatives voting up or down between the three. (though in that fantasy, the 26 votes it takes to elect a President must comprise half the states -- so, with a renewed GOP majority in the House, a majority vote from a majority of states for Trump is pretty much money in the bank. Unless, of course, some of those state delegations trying to achieve consensus for Trump might need some arm-twisting. Or not. Could a majority-GOP House vote for anyone else but the GOP name in front of them? I think not, at least not in my fantasy).

I am going to give Mr Trump New Hampshire today, too, and stop looking at the polls there. If the Trump campaign figures it is worth their while to have had repeat visits there, their internal polling could be reflecting something not seen in public polls so far. (bear in mind that one headline today is that Trump owes high six figures to one of his own pollsters since September, the GOP whiz kid from Florida Tony Fabrizio. Another instance of a Trump contractor getting stiffed? Probably not. But I mention it just to note that Trump most certainly has been polling strategically, and likely believes New Hampshire can swing his way given the right circumstances.)

One other interesting state is New Mexico, where Trump and Pence have campaigned recently and where they visit in the next two days. It only takes about forty 'grams' of thumb to turn New Mexico red again.

To again put in perspective the actual places the Red Hat Machine is rallying, the Trump campaign lists Arizona(1), New Mexico(1), North Carolina(2), Pennsylvania(3), Colorado(2), and Florida(5).

I will look in tomorrow with a Trump-thumb on Colorado. Today the news is still that Mr Trump is bashing the integrity of the state/county systems. Here is a snapshot of Colorado from Real Clear Politics. Within reach?  I don't know for sure, but I'll begin analysis assuming "Yes."