Print

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

[PTTG??]

I dunno, I'm having trouble finding an inaccuracy in the tweet. "Treacherous?" Yes. "Russian whore?" Well, depends. "Prostitute" would have been a better term, as "whore" is stigmatizing. Also, prostitutes don't work for quid-pro-quo, they only work for money. It seems pretty clear that Trump is serving Russian interests in order to attain a feeling of power. The rest of the statement is more clearly true; people have been pointing to manipulation of news media for a while now, and the leaks were clearly from Russian sources from the beginning.

All that said, I don't dislike Russia. I dislike the Putin government. I just wish this was more emphasized.

So, maybe it would have been better if Keith had written, "Putin's @realDonaldTrump's pimp, and we all knew he was a cheap lay for a long time."

[LoSboccacc]

the leaks were clearly from Russian sources from the beginning.

there are TWO named sources it was an insider, but eh. keep believing the inane 'Putin was involved directly' like yeah, he personally flew to Penn to stuff ballots.

[Sergarr]

Stupid tangentially related stuff: remember how Sergarr went full LCS many pages back? There's a person who's actually just like that IRL - Keith Olbermann from GQ. He's been triggered by Trump incredibly hard:



"RUSSIAN SCUM!!!"

Oh hey, I've been watching some of his videos, yes. I think I've caught that LCS thing from him, actually. He's kind of funny, though. He has unironically compared Putin with Hitler in his last instalment, and also was calling for resistance to Trump "by whatever process provides itself".

At this rate, he'll probably start calling for liberal crime squads soon.

I dunno, I'm having trouble finding an inaccuracy in the tweet. "Treacherous?" Yes. "Russian whore?" Well, depends. "Prostitute" would have been a better term, as "whore" is stigmatizing. Also, prostitutes don't work for quid-pro-quo, they only work for money. It seems pretty clear that Trump is serving Russian interests in order to attain a feeling of power. The rest of the statement is more clearly true; people have been pointing to manipulation of news media for a while now, and the leaks were clearly from Russian sources from the beginning.

All that said, I don't dislike Russia. I dislike the Putin government. I just wish this was more emphasized.

So, maybe it would have been better if Keith had written, "Putin's @realDonaldTrump's pimp, and we all knew he was a cheap lay for a long time."

His choice of words is pretty solidly in the area where, if you'd replace "Russian" with, for example, "Jewish", or "Mexican", he'd be immediately labelled as xenophobic, though. "Scum, Russian scum!", at 5:45 and on.

I do find it pretty ironic that he wants for Obama to appoint a "special prosecutor" to deal with Trump, just like Trump once suggested he'll do against Clinton. Being on the "right side of history", or at least thinking to be on one, is one hell of a drug.

EDIT: Seems like something pretty shady is going on with those CIA accusations.

[PTTG??]

Oh, yes, I need to get off my high horse about "honoring the democratic process this" and "maintaining national sovereignty without foreign influence that."

[LoSboccacc]

Oh, yes, I need to get off my high horse about "honoring the democratic process this" and "maintaining national sovereignty without foreign influence that."

eh it's not the conclusion that's shaky, but the premise.

[Sergarr]

Oh, yes, I need to get off my high horse about "honoring the democratic process this" and "maintaining national sovereignty without foreign influence that."

Well, since you've already almost lost your national sovereignty by being on a verge of electing Trump...

In other news, it seems like the new - and totally crazy - plan to prevent Trump, the Russian puppet, from becoming POTUS, is to have all Clinton electors switch and vote for some "moderate Republican", combined with enough Trump electors switching to that same "moderate Republican" at the same time.

I kind of doubt that something like that could be firmly negotiated within the span of just two-three days, but eh.

[McTraveller]

So I'm confused - are the allegations that Russia actually hacked the voting machines and changed the voting results, or that Russia did a "social engineering" hack to sway the vote?

If it's the former then yeah that is pretty scary, but I'd put it more on the shoddy implementation of voting system infrastructure security.

If it's the latter (which is what "releasing various emails, etc." seems to be to me at least), how is that any different than what the various campaigns themselves do?  Is it really a "hack" to give people (mis)information to convince them to vote (or not) a particular way?

[Shadowlord]

If it's the latter (which is what "releasing various emails, etc." seems to be to me at least), how is that any different than what the various campaigns themselves do?  Is it really a "hack" to give people (mis)information to convince them to vote (or not) a particular way?

When you have to hack into a person or organization's email (in this case, both the DNC and Podesta, separately) in order to obtain their emails, in order to give them to wikileaks? :V

[Sheb]

the leaks were clearly from Russian sources from the beginning.

there are TWO named sources it was an insider, but eh. keep believing the inane 'Putin was involved directly' like yeah, he personally flew to Penn to stuff ballots.

Which one? The only one I saw was a British ex-ambassador with an axe to grind.

[Rockphed]

So, on the subject of polling: If somebody had asked my honest opinion about who would win the election, I would have said Clinton.  If they had asked who I was voting for, I would have said Evan Mcmullin (well, if they asked within about a month of the election, before that I was undecided if I was even going to cast a presidential vote).  At least one of the polls somebody linked to talked about some percent of Americans saying they thought Clinton was going to win.

Another thing to note: Over the course of the last year we had lots and lots of polls.  Almost none of them actually predicted the election they nominally covered.  Sure, lots of them got the top thing right (who won), but many of them got the vote percentage wrong by more than their margins of error.  "The Polling is Bad" was no where near as prevalent this year as in 2012, when the Republicans told it to themselves to tell themselves that they were going to win.  Be that as it may, we still had lots of really bad polling.

[Neonivek]

The other aspect is people are REALLY REALLY all or nothing about the Poll results.

Even though the poll results aren't "Hillary is going to win no matter what" that is exactly what people drawn from it. EVEN THE NEWS didn't say "Hillary winning is a foregone conclusion" and yet that is how people took it.

Why is everyone so bad at statistics?

[Shadowlord]

Why is everyone so bad at statistics?

That's, like, math, man.

[Sergarr]

Why is everyone so bad at statistics?

Human's logical part of the brain isn't naturally well-suited for fuzzy and uncertain statements.

Which is obviously why we must replace humanity with a superior robotic race. They wouldn't have elected Donald Trump, after all!

[misko27]

Why is everyone so bad at statistics?

Why are you not perfect? Answer me this first.

Why is everyone so bad at statistics?

Human's logical part of the brain isn't naturally well-suited for fuzzy and uncertain statements.

Sergarr you've managed to reverse the Hollywood evil AI logic. It' s humans that are supposed to be good at handling fuzziness and the uncertain, and robots which are stuck in their programming.

Properly applied statistics are, well, properly applied. The issue is simply that the logic of statistics and the logic of how humanity functions are quite different, and as they intersect they cause problems. No one thinks and argues exclusively in terms of Null and Alternative Hypotheses, after all. I create a statistics that says X, and someone hears "X" and they think "Y" because in most situations with X, Y is true. And yet statistically it might not be the case. A dissonance between the way in which the human brain comprehends things and the assumptions statistics takes for granted.

Which is obviously why we must replace humanity with a superior robotic race. They wouldn't have elected Donald Trump, after all!

Better question: what, precisely, would a robot want?

[MrRoboto75]

Better question: what, precisely, would a robot want?

Omnic Rights