Decision 2012
Quote: terapinedWow, you just dissed 24 of the last 26 secretary of states and tagged them all as quitters. wow.
Huh?? You said yourself that they quit.
Quote: Beethoven9thHuh?? You said yourself that they quit.
Resigned = Quit, or does it?
Quote: Beethoven9th
WTF??? I honestly don't know where you come up with this stuff. When you reply to people's posts, you always go off on crazy tangents. *facepalm*
Analogy (from Greek ἀíáëïãßá, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy
Quote: Beethoven9thThe pollsters are the ones who deserve the credit for providing him with accurate snapshots of the electorate.
Quote: rxwineSo, the casinos deserve the credit when they give the Wizard some accurate stats to analyze games then?
Quote: terapinedI know it infuriates the right that she is the odds on favorite.
Ummm..... this is a gambling forum.... do you know what 'odds on favorite' even means? I guess not....
But to the point.... I think 5-2 is fair odds..... she may not want to run... a presently less known democrat may win the nomination (like Obama did to her once before).... and there is the very small chance that a Republican could beat her......
If she were 'odds on', the odds would be 2-5, not 5 -2...............
Quote: thecesspitResigned = Quit, or does it?
If it's a liberal, then "resigned" is used.
If it's a conservative, then they "quit".
LOL
Quote: rxwineAnalogy (from Greek ἀíáëïãßá, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process... [snip]
False analogy: definition
---------------
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:
The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.
The amount and variety of the examples in the analogy.
The number of characteristics that the things being compared share.
An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning. One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.
---------------
But forget about that. This is the one that applies more to you: ;)
Tangent: A sudden digression or change of course; diverging from an original purpose or course, irrelevant
Quote: rxwineYeah, that would be a great refutation Beethoven, if it was a one.
Yeah, and your initial post would be a great argument, if it was one. ;)
No wonder you're a conservative, it doesn't take logic.
Quote: rxwineIf comparing Nate and the Wizard is that far out of line in trying to show each does analysis...
No wonder you're a conservative, it doesn't take logic.
WTF?? You've jumped from political pollsters over to casinos & the Wizard?
No wonder why you're a liberal. It doesn't take any common sense. (J/K, of course!) ;)
Quote: Beethoven9thWTF?? You've jumped from political pollsters over to casinos & the Wizard?
Yup, but it's not tangents. You can even argue with abstract symbolism. That too, is not a tangent.
Quote: SOOPOOUmmm..... this is a gambling forum.... do you know what 'odds on favorite' even means? I guess not....
But to the point.... I think 5-2 is fair odds..... she may not want to run... a presently less known democrat may win the nomination (like Obama did to her once before).... and there is the very small chance that a Republican could beat her......
If she were 'odds on', the odds would be 2-5, not 5 -2...............
Sorry , you are absolutey correct. How about this. Due to the odds, Clinton is currently the betting favorite.
I didn't realize odds on favorite means lower then 1 to 1. Thanks. Helping me not look so dumb in future posts :-)
Some of the interesting Demo longshots
Elizabeth Warren 30 to 1
Al Franken 200 to 1
Martin O'Malley 20 to 1. I saw this guy live perform with his band. played guitar and sang. Wasn't interested in him, Los Lobos was next on the festival stage. Band was Omalleys March. Noticed everybody from mayors office was there. I guess when the bosses band plays, you show up. He's the Gov now.
Quote: rxwineYup, but it's not tangents. You can even argue with abstract symbolism. That too, is not a tangent.
Your "analogy" makes about as much sense as saying:
1) The sky is blue.
2) Water is blue.
3) Therefore, the sky is like water.
Quote: Beethoven9thYour "analogy" makes about as much sense as saying:
1) The sky is blue.
2) Water is blue.
3) Therefore, the sky is like water.
That's a simile. Used quite often in poetry.
Actually, I thought deep, independent analysis of statistics (in one case polls and baseball scores, in another gambling and probability) IS comparable. I was going to make the same analogy myself... The Wizard takes great pride in his analysis work, as does Nate Silver. Neither -seems- to have an agenda for a 'side', except to prove a truthful analysis that works.
So rxwine wasn't the only one to see parallels between Nate's work and Michael's work. But then, I am a liberal as well.
Quote: Beethoven9thYour "analogy" makes about as much sense as saying:
1) The sky is blue.
2) Water is blue.
No, it seems more like
1) The sky is blue
2) Water is blue,
3) Beethoven -- Don't be confusing me! How is blue related to blue? What? Tangent!!!
Actually, it's called a 'syllogism'.Quote: thecesspitThat's a simile. Used quite often in poetry.
True, sentence #3 is a simile, and I was initially going to write "Therefore, the sky is water," but rxwine wouldn't have understood. ;)
But that's not what rxwine had said. He compared pollsters to casinos.Quote: thecesspitActually, I thought deep, independent analysis of statistics (in one case polls and baseball scores, in another gambling and probability) IS comparable.
Quote: rxwineNo, it seems more like
1) The sky is blue
2) Water is blue,
3) Beethoven -- Don't be confusing me! How is blue related to blue? What? Tangent!!!
Sentences 1 & 2 already address that question. Duh!
Quote: Beethoven9thBut that's not what rxwine had said. He compared pollsters to casinos.
Bah,
If this is too complicated for you, let me know. Pollsters and casinos both provide data in their own way. You dismissed in a sentence Nate's effort (but I also note you contradicted, or backpedaled saying you're not trying to take anything away from Nate) Both Nate and the Wizard do the work of analysis of data. AM I GOING TOO FAST?
Do you see any connection yet? I wouldn't congratulate Nate for doing the actual polling, but he does analysis on data. So does the Wizard.
LOL...do you even read messages that you reply to? I said that political consultants "have to run actual campaigns, make decisions, and develop strategies to win. Nate Silver does none of that. (This isn't a shot at Nate; it's simply the truth)"Quote: rxwineYou dismissed in a sentence Nate's effort (but I also note you contradicted, or backpedaled saying you're not trying to take anything away from Nate)
Hell, you can't even quote me properly.
EDIT: I went back and reread the thread. Perhaps you were talking about this line? I said: "Nate Silver's "predictions" are based mostly on polling data & demographics. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve props for picking the winner, but he's no sage or anything. (Lots of people picked Obama last year)"
Even if you were referring to this line, how the heck is it "backpedaling"? I simply said that he's no sage, but that he (along with the thousands of others who picked Obama to win) deserve props. Is this really so complicated for you?
I never denied this. ARE YOU GOING TOO SLOW?Quote: rxwineBoth Nate and the Wizard do the work of analysis of data. AM I GOING TOO FAST?
Quote:Nate Silver's "predictions" are based mostly on polling data & demographics. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve props for picking the winner, but he's no sage or anything. (Lots of people picked Obama last year) The pollsters are the ones who deserve the credit for providing him with accurate snapshots of the electorate.
"The pollsters are the ones who deserve the credit for providing him with accurate snapshots of the electorate"
Maybe Nate will use the above line in his resume'.
Quote: rxwine"The pollsters are the ones who deserve the credit for providing him with accurate snapshots of the electorate"
Maybe Nate will use the above line in his resume'.
I already edited my last post to include this line. Since you probably won't bother to take the time to go back and read it, here's what I added:
Quote: Beethoven9thEDIT: I went back and reread the thread. Perhaps you were talking about this line? I said: "Nate Silver's "predictions" are based mostly on polling data & demographics. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve props for picking the winner, but he's no sage or anything. (Lots of people picked Obama last year)"
Even if you were referring to this line, how the heck is it "backpedaling"? I simply said that he's no sage, but that he (along with the thousands of others who picked Obama to win) deserve props. Is this really so complicated for you?
...but according to libs, voter fraud never occurs.
Quote: Beethoven9thEx-poll worker sentenced to prison for illegal voting
...but according to libs, voter fraud never occurs.
I'm a liberal and have no problem with one vote/one person being enforced via ID. Making voting 'easier' doesn't increase turn out, but protecting the sanctity of voting is important in a democracy.
I can't vote in Canada, but I suspect if I tried I could vote illegally. Getting caught would probably end up in at best removing my right to become a citizen, at worst deportation.
Quote: boymimboYep, three people. It's a huge gigantic problem that threw the election that must be resolved by passing laws that restrict voting.
The judge who sentenced her to prison didn't buy that argument.
Quote: thecesspitI'm a liberal and have no problem with one vote/one person being enforced via ID. Making voting 'easier' doesn't increase turn out, but protecting the sanctity of voting is important in a democracy.
+1
Quote: Beethoven9th+1
I'll note that I also believe people legally resident in a country where they pay taxes should be allowed to vote, even if they aren't a citizen of that country.
But I might be a little biased....
Quote: thecesspitI'll note that I also believe people legally resident in a country where they pay taxes should be allowed to vote, even if they aren't a citizen of that country.
-1
So that cancels out my previous +1. (haha)
Quote: Beethoven9th-1
So that cancels out my previous +1. (haha)
Oh, so you believe in taxation without representation? ;)
Actually, I understand -why- non-citizens can't vote.
I just don't think that has to be the case (in the UK, all legal residents from the UK, Ireland and the Commonwealth can vote in local and national elections. Non-resident Citizens (like myself) can vote for up to 10 years after emigration).
Quote: thecesspitOh, so you believe in taxation without representation? ;)
Actually, I understand -why- non-citizens can't vote.
You just answered your own question. But technically speaking, I'd like to abolish the income tax and go strictly to a consumption tax. I know that this will probably never happen, but I can always dream.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: thecesspitOh, so you believe in taxation without representation? ;)
Actually, I understand -why- non-citizens can't vote.
You just answered your own question. But technically speaking, I'd like to abolish the income tax and go strictly to a consumption tax. I know that this will probably never happen, but I can always dream.
So only citizen-consumers could vote?
I think a strict consumption tax could happen one day. Be careful for what you wish for though, as it might not be for reasons you like....
Quote: boymimboYep, three people. It's a huge gigantic problem that threw the election that must be resolved by passing laws that restrict voting.
How does requiring ID restrict voting other than restricting voter fraud?
Due to UK odds makers, Clinton still the favorite and still is at 7/2 to 5/2 depending on which UK site you choose to bet at.
Next closest is Rubio 6/1 to 10/1 spread depending on which UK betting site .
Clint Eastwood, 500 to 1. Odds lower if Dems nominate a chair.
Here's a bold prediction, Elizabeth Warren 2024, after 8 years of Clinton.
Can't speak for people in other countries, but pretty much nobody (liberal or conservative) in the US has a problem with who is eligible to vote. Voter fraud is what conservatives are worried about.Quote: thecesspitSo only citizen-consumers could vote?
I'd only support a consumption tax if the income tax were abolished at the same time.Quote: thecesspitI think a strict consumption tax could happen one day. Be careful for what you wish for though, as it might not be for reasons you like....
Quote: thecesspitI think a strict consumption tax could happen one day. Be careful for what you wish for though, as it might not be for reasons you like....
A dystopian political futurist might envision a government policy of mandatory consumption in order to have a suitable (and readily controllable) consumption base upon which to levy taxes. And then there would be quasi-private organizations set up to deliver those mandatory goods, and perhaps debate their nature and quantity. And then you'd have special corporate interests lobbying for having their goods included in the mandatory consumption quota, and pretty soon every day we'll all be getting a breakfast delivery from Starbucks and dinner delivered from Taco Bell. You might not want it, but you'll get it - and you'll pay for it.
A sci-fi author could have a lot of fun with this...
Quote: AZDuffmanHow does requiring ID restrict voting other than restricting voter fraud?
Here in Florida, In order to increase repub vote, Repubs were pushing vote by mail to the repub base. At the Paul Ryan ralley in Oldsmar FL last year, they made sure the base was aware you can vote via mail. How do you check ID? If its a repub voting, repubs could care less about ID. I contacted the Repub party and they were thrilled to send me a vote by mail ballot. Since I was in vegas election day, it was very convenient. Don't think they would be thrilled with who I voted for but hey, this is America.
Quote: terapinedI contacted the Repub party and they were thrilled to send me a vote by mail ballot.
FL must have some weird laws as any other state I lived in you got an absentee ballot from the elections bureau and not a party.
Quote: MathExtremistA dystopian political futurist might envision a government policy of mandatory consumption in order to have a suitable (and readily controllable) consumption base upon which to levy taxes. And then there would be quasi-private organizations set up to deliver those mandatory goods, and perhaps debate their nature and quantity. And then you'd have special corporate interests lobbying for having their goods included in the mandatory consumption quota, and pretty soon every day we'll all be getting a breakfast delivery from Starbucks and dinner delivered from Taco Bell. You might not want it, but you'll get it - and you'll pay for it.
A sci-fi author could have a lot of fun with this...
See "Directive 10-289."
Quote: terapinedHere in Florida, In order to increase repub vote, Repubs were pushing vote by mail to the repub base. At the Paul Ryan ralley in Oldsmar FL last year, they made sure the base was aware you can vote via mail. How do you check ID?
That's fine, I'd have no problem getting rid of voting by mail. Lazy liberals are more likely to vote by mail than conservatives, so getting rid of it would be great.....AND it would lower the risk of voter fraud, as you just stated. A win-win situation.
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's fine, I'd have no problem getting rid of voting by mail. Lazy liberals are more likely to vote by mail than conservatives, so getting rid of it would be great.....AND it would lower the risk of voter fraud, as you just stated. A win-win situation.
Voting by mail discriminates against women and minorities as they are less likely to have a mailbox nearby so it must be eliminated.
People entering this country illegally do so knowing full well that they are breaking basic American laws and are acting in a fashion to accept the consequences of those illegal actions. Among the conditions that they should be aware that they will face are the volumes of illogical and unreasonable stupidities of our tax codes. Ignorance, either intentional or accidental, is never an excuse in such violations.Quote: thecesspitSo only citizen-consumers could vote?
Quote: SanchoPanzaPeople entering this country illegally do so knowing full well that they are breaking basic American laws and are acting in a fashion to accept the consequences of those illegal actions. Among the conditions that they should be aware that they will face are the volumes of illogical and unreasonable stupidities of our tax codes. Ignorance, either intentional or accidental, is never an excuse in such violations.
I was talking about LEGAL residents of the country, who are not citizens, but do pay taxes.
Among other difficulties, that would entail wholesale revisions to the Constitution, including virtual repeals of provisions like at least five amendments, XV, XVII, XIX, XXIV and XXVI.Quote: thecesspitI was talking about LEGAL residents of the country, who are not citizens, but do pay taxes.
Quote: Beethoven9thCan't speak for people in other countries, but pretty much nobody (liberal or conservative) in the US has a problem with who is eligible to vote. Voter fraud is what conservatives are worried about.
No taxation without representation! Your ancestors were certainly worried about who is eligible to vote... :)
Quote:I'd only support a consumption tax if the income tax were abolished at the same time.
I understand. I'm just saying that even with a pure consumption tax (which I would suggest is regressive, like a flat income tax is as well) might be based on a consumption figure you don't like (say.... carbon tax). A generic you that is. I have no idea on your position on a carbon/pollution based taxation system.
Personally, a tax based on unrealized externalities would be a reasonable way of taxation to me. Income tax does have the problem of taxing something you want to encourage (income), but on the flip side it does allow a progressive taxation system. I know many on the right think that a progressive taxation system over a flat tax (regressive) system is leftist stupidity. But then, social democrats do believe in taxation as a form of wealth redistribution (which is a fundamental difference between left and right), so you'll never get agreement there as the central axioms are different. Classical Liberals are mostly mute on this subject, as I recall, and the level or action of wealth redistribution tends to be a sticking point in most Liberal parties I have seen.
Which is fine, and actually less frustrating to discover.
Exactly, and they didn't want non-citizens voting. I doubt they'd be happy about the illegal immigration situation either. (Too bad we can't deport them all)Quote: thecesspitYour ancestors were certainly worried about who is eligible to vote... :)
I don't even consider that a consumption tax since "pollution" isn't goods & services.Quote: thecesspitI have no idea on your position on a carbon/pollution based taxation system.
Quote:I don't even consider that a consumption tax since "pollution" isn't goods & services.
It's an externality to (some) goods and services that isn't always figured into the cost of those goods and services.
It would exactly be a consumption tax : the more hydrocarbons you consume, the more you pay in tax. Instead of a flat tax on a percentage of value of the goods, it would be a dollar price on some item X used in production of goods and services. It already happens on some goods that are taxed higher than others (due to import duties, for example).
Quote: thecesspitIt's an externality to (some) goods and services that isn't always figured into the cost of those goods and services.
It would exactly be a consumption tax
This is just liberals semantics. I'm not purchasing "pollution" when I buy goods & services, so it's not a consumption tax. By your definition of 'consumption', we should tax the heat (like George Harrison said).
Quote: Beethoven9thThis is just liberals semantics. I'm not purchasing "pollution" when I buy goods & services, so it's not a consumption tax. By your definition of 'consumption', we should tax the heat (like George Harrison said).
You are purchasing hydrocarbons (or someone is in the chain). My example was very clear... tax consumption of a specific item, not a dollar percentage cost. It's still consumption of a specific set of goods.
The -reason- may be to reduce pollution, and make externalities count. I'm not sure why you'd be opposed to that? Taking responsibility for yourself (and the effects of your own actions) is a conservative mantra (in fact it's the opposite of the society first mantra of the social democrat).
The reason to tax consumption over income by most economists is to promote increasing income and reduce consumption (as taxes reduce the desirability of something, economically speaking). So you know a flat consumption tax on everything would reduce the purchase of goods in general (though this effect is reduced by the increases purchasing power when you remove income tax). I don't claim that's a bad thing... most economists agree that reduction in income tax, and increasing sales/consumption taxes are a good idea economically. Economics != politics, as you know.
So do you oppose taxation or costing of pollution? Ignore CO2, if you desire. Lets just go for dirty water, or sulphuric dioxide or mercury. Items that may not be completely cleaned out of manufacturing processes, but can have a negative effect on the environment... which effects the locality or broader nation. Or do you want more direct controls on industry to reduce pollutants? I would argue that a cost incentive is a better way of making people take into account all externalities rather than increasing regulations.
Quote: thecesspitYou are purchasing hydrocarbons (or someone is in the chain). My example was very clear... tax consumption of a specific item, not a dollar percentage cost. It's still consumption of a specific set of goods.
The -reason- may be to reduce pollution, and make externalities count. I'm not sure why you'd be opposed to that? Taking responsibility for yourself (and the effects of your own actions) is a conservative mantra (in fact it's the opposite of the society first mantra of the social democrat).
This conversation is a perfect example of why conservatives dislike trying to have an honest discussion with liberals. This silly game of semantics gets tiring. If you want to tax what you've just described, that's fine, and we can discuss it on its merits. But to try to pawn it off as some type of "consumption tax" is intellectually dishonest.
You remind me of a foreign guy I once talked to who was arguing with me about my use of the term 'parkway'. He kept telling me that I was using the word incorrectly and that people 'park' their cars on parkways because that's the definition of the word 'park'. You're trying to pull the same thing with 'consume' and 'consumption' tax. The difference though is that the foreign guy had an excuse and didn't know better. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy, and you do (or, at least, should) know better.
Regardless of what you want to believe, none of the taxes you described above is a consumption tax. (If you support those kinds of taxes, fine, but try basing your arguments on its merits instead)
