This is no longer a placeholder. Some 'on the record' wild guesses are already out -- notably our Bob Kolker -- so I too am going to publish a prediction/analysis, knowing full well I might be picking through bird bones on November 9.
I think Donald Trump will lose the election on November 8th. I have some definite reasons why. I thought to post the reasons here, even if I am shown to be gawdawfully wrong later on. How 'off' will my analytic take be? Only time will tell.
[NB -- this was originally an unpublished draft, but was viewable by the Administrator, who rightfully thought it was a normal entry in the blog. I publish it now since it contains some interesting and challenging feedback on my opinions. The draft was taken from the Rigging thread.]
Overkill. Gotcha. Gazillions!
Maybe, as you say. Maybe not.
I hope that reports and suspicions of irregularities and vulnerabilities are taken seriously by any American concerned about the integri
A well-timed leak of the Trump remarks as prepared has sloshed its way into the hoopla machinery. One such transcript is here, at Politico.
Over at Reason, the reasonable Matt Welch points out a few disquieting tones of authoritarianism.
I have been watching Trump speeches since the primaries, since I ate crow about Bush. I will watch and re-watch this one tonight, as it is probably the most important speech by the candidate to date, and will probably garner the biggest TV audience
It's a deal.
Browser not supported. Visit &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a data-cke-saved-href=&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;http://www.270towin.com/&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; href=&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;http://www.270towin.com/&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;
At this point in the American presidential election cycle, Trump supporters should be excited -- not despite the challenges, but because of the challenges. Their candidate is an assertive, even aggressive personality, a fighter. What does a fighter relish if not challenging, high risk/high reward situations?
Imagine you have been summoned to Trump Tower. Can you make 'contact' and a persuasive argument that some of these challenges are central, some peripheral, some not even challenges a
Trump is working from a self-limited palette.
I guess you people hear lots of different things. "Why did he do it?" is psychologizing? It sounds like your people are incurious. If there are others just like this killer, laying in wait ...
This is weird. Your 'holier-than-thou liberal secularists here' -- do they have names? Is it possible to lift up their awful comments and show them relevant? No?
Hardly relevant, IMO. And not recently. Sente
I can't imagine what this guy is feeling, but I am stirred emotionally a bit. I can almost describe the feeling I had when I first saw the image. I had been looking on Google Image for similar images to one which was used as illustration of the Romantic/Sublime arty-farty heyday. Google Images returns, most often, a similar colour-range (the illustration was blue) and quite often a contextual/conceptual similitude: the Google Image results for 'search for this image' gave "like" mountains, pea
Brant, some areas of biology are more complicated than flip one-liners ... I think you do well understand that there is variation in genitals. I have explained this before at length here. Please review the 'spectrum' of real-world and recurring cases of babies born with indeterminate external genitalia. It is relevant and not all that complicated in principle: the X and the Y have jobs to do as chromosomes. In a normally developing fetus, their job is done to the norm. It is the not norm I thi
[Added by WSS, August 18 2018: old placeholder thread, updated with a puzzler snatched from the front pages of OL. It's a neat little attribution discussion, with sides of psychology and morality ... I may not get around to answering myself for a bit, but thought to dust this old entry off, give it some glitz, and apply twenty-first century cogitation tech. ]
Argument Clinic May 12 and 13
-- thanks to the tipster who saw this entrained convo begin to derail.
I'd like to think tha
Objective eyes on November: Roundtable - May 11, 2016
Roger Bissell, Robert Campbell, and William Scott Scherk look through Objective(ish) eyes at the US presidential election. Get to know the spirit, humour and wit of the three amigos in the first of a series.
Presented as an audio-only podcast at Conversations with the Greats | Show notes at November Eyes Notes
No particular topic to start this off. I want to open a space where doubt is okay -- to have disquieting anticipation, to have issues and questions and even fierce criticism. OK to roll.
I will also act as a moderator. The rules that are in place are the same general OL rules, but I intend to be a tight-ass. Please do not overdo 'personalizing' discussion. Do not attack the character of discussants or otherwise be a conversational oaf. There is only one level of appeal.
So ... an
To be a real American, you must have a real name. Or not.
I have teeth that want to chew into this whole episode. But I am committed to the aural tradition, and will take these moments with me into the POD. Perhaps REB is interested in heading down this alley a ways. It is so depressing a subject, but I think worth the expenditure in sanitizing solution.
Where disagreement is starkest -- there is the coal-face of Reason. Together an epistemologically-sound team of technici
Thank you for tuning in. This is my script for responding to a notion put forward on the front porch of OL. I use the blog to form arguments and to analyze statements. Much of my work here is done to pre-load some assumptions. In this case, the prelaoded assumptions are in the quoted material
First step, orientation and identification. Think of you and a map in hand, along with a remembered direction. You are in America, where opinions flow fast and hot. Mark Levin is a radio-jock, a talk-
QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?
DRUMPF: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that's my stance. Is that OK? You understand?
MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?