william.scherk

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,165

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    66

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by william.scherk

    william.scherk

    Posted

    On 1/1/2021 at 12:23 PM, Marc said:

    I'm curious if you will wager with me here, a gentleman's bet, or a loonie, just to make it interesting?

    Negotiations broke down, but here I pledge to send OL fifty bucks if Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20 for a second term in office. I will also publish a "Why I was wrong and MSK was right."

    • Thanks 1
    william.scherk

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I don't think making the image bigger is the right persuasion tool in this case.

    It looks like you are trying too hard because nobody is listening.

    I tried in both Chrome and Edge to reduce the size of the image in the OL code, which is generally a snap. I will try again.  If that fails, I'll reduce the size of the screenshot and try once more.  

    Perhaps you have no opinion on the L Lin Wood tweet besides the size of its reproduction.  

    william.scherk

    Posted · Edited by william.scherk

    Courtesies.

    2 hours ago, Marc said:
    3 hours ago, william.scherk said:
    3 hours ago, Marc said:

    Fellow Canadian, please explain to me why Lin Wood is wrong?

    Wrong about what, Marc? Do you mean something like 'please explain why L Lin Wood is wrong to call for the arrests of Pence'?

    Wrong about anything or everything.

    Everything or anything is good, and I can take the 'anything' as "Wrong to call for the arrests of Pence" or "Wrong prediction that Pence will be arrested" or/and "Wrong to assume that if arrested, Pence will face a firing squad."

    Basically, I believe that Pence is not at risk of being arrested for treason. I am not really sure what L Lin Wood believes in his heart, but his words express (for me) a recklessness and a lack of rational judgement.

    I believe it wrong to agitate for the arrests of Vice President Mike Pence, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

    That partially answers your question. I'd like to ask you one back, if you are willing to give it a go.

    Quote

    I'm curious if you will wager with me here, a gentleman's bet, or a loonie, just to make it interesting?

    I don't gamble, generally, but these are special times. I could do a special Twitter video short: "Why and How I Was Wrong about January 6th" or ~500 word Friends and Foes post -- if I lose the contest. Or you can tell me what I need do once I lose the wager.  Or suggest what we each do on winning/losing.

    So, what shall be the wager? Shall we base it on a fantasy-league Who Wins January 6 o something similar?

    LinWoodPENCEshooting.png

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    LinWoodPENCEshooting.png (544×379) (wsscherk.com)

    [fourth fifth attempt to re-size]

     

    william.scherk

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, Marc said:

    Fellow Canadian, please explain to me why Lin Wood is wrong?

    Wrong about what, Marc? Do you mean something like 'please explain why L Lin Wood is wrong to call for the arrests of Pence'?

    10 minutes ago, Marc said:

    Also, can Ontario join the Union? 

    Yes, conceivably, sure, why not. It would be a protracted process -- and considering the Clarity Act, any referendum in Ontario on leaving Confederation would need to garner a substantial majority.  So, getting to that first necessary place seems quite unlikely in my lifetime.  

     

     

    william.scherk
    william.scherk
    william.scherk

    Posted

    22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    See the problem when one refuses to accept the nature of one kind of category and wants it to have the nature of a different kind?

    From the main stage at Objectivist Living. Pertinent to future discussions of the deepitude of the deepness. In Scientology, this would be the Beingness of the Havingness.

    1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    To be fair re Deep State and SCOTUS, this looks really Deep Statey, plenty enough Deep Statey to qualify calling part of SCOTUS Deep State.

    and 

    I don't know who the source of this is, but I can take an educated guess.

    There is a lot of news around that Julian Assange formally asked President Trump for a pardon and, before that, a rumor was circulating that President Trump was going to pardon him.

    Or, maybe something from from Jeffrey Epstein archives that no one knows where they are (except maybe Ghislaine)? After all, Epstein did record his guests without their knowledge.

    Either that, or this is a show of muscle about the DNI's surveillance capabilities.

    Or maybe something else I haven't thought of.

    One thing is for sure. I find the idea that Lin would put this out without having a credible source impossible.

    Once the audio becomes available, this is going to be like the Access Hollywood audio was for candidate Trump. Let's see if Roberts and Breyer figure out how to deal with it the way Trump did his headache. I don't think they have the talent to pull it off.

    Man, talk about a perfect-fit-with-no-daylight pretext for martial law...

    Michael

    To be fair re Deep State and SCOTUS, this looks really Deep Statey, plenty enough Deep Statey to qualify calling part of SCOTUS Deep State.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    Do you ever have puzzles in the back of your mind that come to the fore sometimes? For me some words are like mechanical puzzles. I'm just now re-reading the Lofgren essay and the Camille Paglia discussion cited in in the link at bottom.

    But anyhow, one of the mild nagging concrete questions is 'can it be enumerated?' Meaning, I wonder if we could get an org chart and names/functions. I muse that it could be a cell-network drawn from terrorist history (the corps actors known only to the 'cell' they are in; with occulted leadership;with a general "political line" leading all the parallel/embedded agents).

    It's a term that I think should be perfectly amenable to an Objectivist approach. And I fail to satisfy myself.

    The main confusion is my mind is due to a fusion of "Ship of State" with "Deep State," as shown in my stab at the puzzle today. Things to do on a bicycle ride building back my stamina. "That's not quite right, William. Better luck next time."

     

     

    Showing results for '"deep state"' in content posted by william.scherk. - Objectivist Living

    william.scherk

    Posted · Edited by william.scherk

    QAnon "research rigor" already appears to have partially fused with Trumpism. In parallel, 8kun owner's son Ron Watkins is now cited as an authority in a Sidney Powell-led pleading.

    Some official electoral-fraud inquiry is live right now out of Michigan (in some ways a better organized version of the Arizona ballroom conflab).  The embed should let you go back in time:

    Or on YouTube via Right Side Broadcasting.

    william.scherk

    Posted · Edited by william.scherk

      Some opinions about this last week of the 2020 election, with attention paid to polling getting "closer to reality."

    On 10/4/2020 at 9:06 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
    On 10/4/2020 at 1:13 PM, ThatGuy said:

    A week out from election day, the fundamental nature of these polls changes. Suddenly correct types of people will be polled in the correct quantity and some of the polls will be published. These polls are, in practice (but not name), cover-your-ass polls. :evil: 

    All polls in the fake news media are wildly inaccurate, but they will get closer to reality starting about one week before the election.

     

    The two main mainstream sources of polling aggregates are Real Clear Politics and Five Thirty Eight, with the Cook Political Report offering several visualizations of the all-important Electoral College map. 

    Quote

    A week out from election day, the fundamental nature of these polls changes. Suddenly correct types of people will be polled in the correct quantity and some of the polls will be published. These polls are, in practice (but not name), cover-your-ass polls. :evil: 

    Single national polls are perhaps the least indicative of where any particular state race stands, but the rolling averages are often cited.

    Here's a snapshot of the 538 average; click the image or this link to get to the page -- which also shows tabular data of each item in the average:

    538AV-oct29.png

    Quote

    Discuss and argue about polls if you like. But it's the same thing as talking about a game show teams. One week out is the time to start talking about polls in relation to the actual election and be somewhere in the ball park of reality.

    The Real Clear Politics average is the data-source most often cited by the Trump-friendly election-watchers I follow (including Styxhexenhammer666).  Here's a snapshot and link to the page at the RCP site:

    rcp_av-oct29.png

    If you are interested in the sweep and sway of polls from individual states, both the mainstream sites allow you to dig deeply.  Your "Watch List" might be several or all of the states that are considered 'swing states' (meaning, have been known to swing between presidential candidates in the past half dozen national races).  For me, I will be watching Florida over the shoulder of various Trump supporters.  

    Here is a snapshot of the 538 page on Florida; on the page are also listed all the polls that were folded into the average. The coloured dots are individual polls comprising the average:

    538FloridaOCT29.png

    -- if the polling is woefully wrong, instead of just wrong, it hasn't yet become fully apparent.  Here's the boringly wonkish 'state of the polls' article penned by Nate Silver, from yesterday, "We Have A Lot Of New Polls, But There’s Little Sign Of The Presidential Race Tightening."

    Quote

    After a surprisingly sluggish weekend for polling, the floodgates have opened, with a mix of high-quality polls, low-quality polls and pretty much everything in between. And although there are some outliers in both directions, they tell a fairly consistent story, overall: A steady race nationally, perhaps with some gains for Joe Biden in the Midwest.

    Let’s dive right in. Following our rules from my colleague Geoffrey Skelley’s post earlier this week, we’re going to look at every poll where at least half of the survey took place after last week’s debate, with a comparison to the most recent pre-debate survey by the same firm. If the pollster hasn’t surveyed a state before, we’ll make the comparison based on what the FiveThirtyEight polling average said in that state as of the night of the debate (Oct. 22) instead.

    [...]

    Here's another interactive feature from the gang at 538; this one lets you run scenarios against their forecast models:

    538_exploreScenarios.png

    Spoiler

    538Explore.gif

     

     

    william.scherk

    Posted

    On 10/21/2020 at 11:18 AM, william.scherk said:
    On 10/6/2020 at 10:30 AM, william.scherk said:

    A strong position on polls from the Front Porch:

    On 10/4/2020 at 9:06 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    All polls in the fake news media are wildly inaccurate, but they will get closer to reality starting about one week before the election.

    That last week will be a month's worth of intense hoopla away.  I won't comment on "The Polls" until then, but leave a link to the 270toWin.com interactive Electoral College map.  

    The time is upon us.