Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

-snip-

Those, except for the last two, are NATIONAL polls, and polls have been wrong or off before.

Polls were spot on last time and it's looking to be a landslide for Hillary.

Trump has a bigger chance of winning than the Cubs had of winning the World Series, and the Cubs won, so, it's still possible.

If anything, her winning is even more of a reason to vote to send a message to the Republicans.

[Sergarr]

Spoiler: Continuation of Kot argument (click to show/hide)

There is no victory nor venegance in this case. There is only death.

That is precisely the idea, general. That is precisely the idea. The idea that someone might "let go" of a nuclear attack was the single biggest contributer to the likelihood of nuclear war, and the idea that someone one destroy the world to get revenge is almost certainly the single greatest cause of peace between the US and Russia today, and every day since the surrender of German forces. If you are unwilling, even in principle, to mount vengeance upon those who would strike first, then logically a first strike is an easy and powerful tool to achieve any goal. The entirety of deterrence is the theory of this. Would you start a war over the world? Sure, anyone would. How about the destruction of DC? Or New York? Or London? Would the Soviets respond if we nuked Moscow? Sure. How about, Leningrad? Obviously. But harder questions: How about Kaliningrad? Or even non-soviet states, like Warsaw? Or even non-comintern states, like Belgrade? What if only the UK did it, not the US? Or France? The answer is that if you wish to prevent a nuclear strike at all, the only logical principle is that you must say that even the slightest nuclear provocation will receive a full retaliatory response. As Kennedy said:

It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

Spoiler: my 2 cents (click to show/hide)

Massive retaliation response to even a small nuclear launch is not exactly a good doctrine, either, because there were enough incidents with technical malfunctions or miscommunication creating an illusion of a small-scale nuclear attack that would've initiated WW3 if such doctrine were to be followed.

The de-facto used doctrine of "ignoring" nuclear warnings of seemingly small scale seems far more sensible to me.

[smjjames]

Polls were spot on last time

No. They weren't.

Edit: They were closer then the margin of error that Trump needs to win the presidency, however, not by a huge amount, and in this election there's a much larger number of undecideds who could swing ether way.

Yeah, 12% undecideds compared to 3% on Election Day in 2012.

[Rolan7]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm really not wrong, though.

Those are tiny spreads though, many are within the expected margin of error.

To cut through the statistics talk, 538 is saying Clinton has a 71% overall chance of winning.  That's good, but it's faaaar from a sure thing.  It's closer to 50-50 than to a sure thing.
I liked my DND "Roll d20, die on 1-6" example.  A (maybe harsh) one would be taking the third turn in Russian Roulette.  Which technically is better odds...

I'm glad you're not trying to convince people to avoid voting, though.  I guess you're just arguing for the sake of argument - I can relate to that

[Frumple]

Hey, UK did basically run with that line despite their polling being even closer. Maybe this is some kind of odd linguistic drift.

[smjjames]

The Trump campaign has made a pre-emptive lawsuit to challenge the results in Nevada. It's for the early voting though and they aren't actually challenging the votes just yet.

While I hope not, Nevada could become to 2016 what Florida was for 2000. I can only wonder where else he might be issuing a challenge.

[MrRoboto75]

I for one got my I Voted sticker

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Max™]

-snip-

Those, except for the last two, are NATIONAL polls, and polls have been wrong or off before.

Polls were spot on last time and it's looking to be a landslide for Hillary.

There are more names on the ballots than just Hillary and Trump.

There are important downballot races in play here.

There are states where a few votes are literally going to make a difference here.

The US has awful turnout anyways, I'd rather have someone vote for Trump than accept your sort of "well, Hillary is going to win anyways, why bother" and just not vote at all.

[Starver]

I'm just giving you my preference. It's the middle of winter and Donald Trump has massively lost.

By any measure, you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Meteorological Winter would be December, January, February (it's not even December yet). Astronomical Winter starts with the Winter Solstice (on or about December 21st) and ends at the Vernal Equinox (near-equivalent day in March) and there are various variants variously voiced, but because the solstices are also called "Mid-Summer's/Winter's Day/Night" the common public idea is that the seasons equitably straddle their solstice (or equinox, for spring and autumn). Even then, it's only just Winter, still nowhere near the middle.

All the above for the Northern extra-tropical, sub-arctic zones of Earth. If you're in the southern hemisphere you're even more wrong in this mostly pre-estival period, if you're in the tropics you'll never ever be right and if you're within the Arctic Circle you've got your own problems, and good luck with them.

I hope that this convinces you of your gross error. And all without even mentioning the 'T'-name in my repudiation.  *Tada*!  I am so proud of myself.  (Now, where's that fall? Or autumn.)

[smjjames]

Lol this: http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/11/2016-election-results-exit-polls-and-analysis-000013#postid=00000158-4521-d660-afd9-45fbb0b50000

Trump Tower being surrounded by garbage trucks and stuff....

[Starver]

When the hell was 3 percentage points a landslide? What fictional universe do you live in where you call that a landslide? That's a narrow edge win, at best.

Would you prefer I told people not to vote during the Brexit vote because "Remain is winning in a landslide"?

Well, the 1.9%* win for Remain was "overwhelming", apparently... 

* Hush, LW and Cov, that's still an argument for back in the other thread.

[Leafsnail]

I wish I could have voted Johnson in an effort to get the Libertarians over the 5% mark, as I would like them to be a better vector for ideas into the two major parties. Unfortunately, polls put Trump's margin of victory in this state at just within the likely margins of the polling error, meaning that I can't afford not to vote Clinton in an effort to flip a closer-than-expected vote.

Also Johnson makes Sarah Palin look well-informed and qualified. Even his own VP basically said to vote Hillary.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Requesting we include "Judgement Day" in the thread title.

[Lord Shonus]

I wish I could have voted Johnson in an effort to get the Libertarians over the 5% mark, as I would like them to be a better vector for ideas into the two major parties. Unfortunately, polls put Trump's margin of victory in this state at just within the likely margins of the polling error, meaning that I can't afford not to vote Clinton in an effort to flip a closer-than-expected vote.

Also Johnson makes Sarah Palin look well-informed and qualified. Even his own VP basically said to vote Hillary.

That's not an issue because I don't expect (or want) Johnson to win. I want the Libertarian Party to gain more prominence so that it has a chance to alter the things I dislike about the major parties.

[Max™]

Something like this one!