2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Yes, but if you don't believe even money is a +EV price for a Trump landslide, that implies that you do not actually think a Trump landslide is >50% likely. The reason you're asking for odds is because, in reality, you do *not* believe that outcome is likely.Quote: MaxPenPeople state things that they believe are probable all the time.
You may not recognize your self-contradiction but many others here do.
No. I'm looking for you to back up your extraordinary claim with a simple bet. Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up.Quote: MaxPenAre you looking for a $5 or $20 handout?
Quote: MathExtremistYes, but if you don't believe even money is a +EV price for a Trump landslide, that implies that you do not actually think a Trump landslide is >50% likely. The reason you're asking for odds is because, in reality, you do *not* believe that outcome is likely.
You may not recognize your self-contradiction but many others here do.
Do people normally assign probabilities to every statement they make? There is no hypocrisy. Take my offered line as the significance of my statement. I am not the one whose panties are in a bunch over a simple statement.
Tomorrow I will see a rainbow, 200-1. It will have pot of gold at the end of it, 10,000-1. Would you give action on my first statement? How about the second?
Quote: MaxPenPeople who are Anal orifices tend to resort to name calling and false claims when losing.
Trump does a lot of both if you never noticed.
As you wish. Your offered line was 10-1, indicating you believe the probability of a Trump landslide victory is less than 9.1%. FiveThirtyEight puts the probability at only 2% of a Trump landslide (defined as a double-digit popular vote margin) so 10-1 is actually a terrible bet for you. 4-1 is even worse, but you indicated you also had action at that level. I'll happily stake $10,000 to win your $2500 that Trump doesn't win by a double-digit popular vote margin.Quote: MaxPenDo people normally assign probabilities to every statement they make? There is no hypocrisy. Take my offered line as the significance of my statement.
I don't think you're being intentionally hypocritical, I just think you're wrong. When someone says something "is going to" happen -- as you did -- they invariably mean the likelihood of that thing happening is greater than 50%. Certainly it is wrong to say "Trump is going to win in a landslide" if you really believe he has less than a 10% chance of winning in a landslide.
That's fine, there's nothing wrong with being semantically wrong. It happens all the time.
But are you so like Donald Trump that you stubbornly refuse to admit it? Will you double down on your rhetoric and insist that "Trump is going to win in a landslide" legitimately covers the scenario where the probability of that happening is less than 10% or even 20%? If so, or if you actually do think Trump's chances of winning by a double-digit vote margin are greater than 20%, go ahead and take my action.
Quote: MathExtremistAs you wish. Your offered line was 10-1, indicating you believe the probability of a Trump landslide victory is less than 9.1%. FiveThirtyEight puts the probability at only 2% of a Trump landslide (defined as a double-digit popular vote margin) so 10-1 is actually a terrible bet for you. 4-1 is even worse, but you indicated you also had action at that level. I'll happily stake $10,000 to win your $2500 that Trump doesn't win by a double-digit popular vote margin.
I don't think you're being intentionally hypocritical, I just think you're wrong. When someone says something "is going to" happen -- as you did -- they invariably mean the likelihood of that thing happening is greater than 50%. Certainly it is wrong to say "Trump is going to win in a landslide" if you really believe he has less than a 10% chance of winning in a landslide.
That's fine, there's nothing wrong with being semantically wrong. It happens all the time.
But are you so like Donald Trump that you stubbornly refuse to admit it? Will you double down on your rhetoric and insist that "Trump is going to win in a landslide" legitimately covers the scenario where the probability of that happening is less than 10% or even 25%? If so, or if you actually do think Trump's chances of winning by a double-digit vote margin are greater than 25%, go ahead and take my action.
Yes, I was offering a great deal at 10-1 and the Hillary supporter wanted even money for a simple statement. Now you want even more % off the already great sale that you yourself have acknowledged. I never said that I had action at the 4-1 level regarding a Trump landslide. No wonder our country is in such shambles. I will put up $1000 to your $10,000 for the predefined and quoted definition of a Trump landslide. Money will have to be held in escrow by the Wizard or other acceptable mutually agreed upon party.
Quote: rxwineTrump does a lot of both if you never noticed.
This is why when quoting it is best to include at least the whole referenced paragraph. Personally, I like to include the whole quote. Reducing to sound bites give to much room for context interpretation. 100's of millions are being spent by the DNC to peddle the same. Unfortunately, people not interested in the truth are easily influenced by the same.
That is a non-sequitur. It is far more apropos to note that the country is in shambles because rich people like Donald Trump skip out on paying any taxes at all while honest, hard-working people like you and me pay diligently every year. And you want him to be your president so he can, what, become part of the same political establishment that put those loopholes in there in the first place? Not paying taxes might make Trump "smart" but it makes your personal tax burden higher. It's a hallmark of Trump's MO to screw over the little guy. That's you, isn't it? So why do you support that?Quote: MaxPenYes, I was offering a great deal at 10-1 and the Hillary supporter wanted even money for a simple statement. Now you want even more % off the already great sale that you yourself have acknowledged. No wonder our country is in such shambles.
You don't want to risk $2500, that's fine. But I'm not going to go longer than 4-1 for someone who so boldly predicts "Trump is going to win in a landslide." Make the $1000 bet at 4-1 to win my $4000 or walk back your hollow (and clearly incorrect) boast.Quote:I will put up $1000 to your $10,000 for the predefined and quoted definition of a Trump landslide. Money will have to be held in escrow by the Wizard or other acceptable mutually agreed upon party.
Quote: mcallister3200delete staying out of it
Are we now trying to place the infidel in a corner for a timeout?
Edit--- now that was funny you deleted before I could respond to the rediculous accusation.
Quote: MathExtremistThat is a non-sequitur. It is far more apropos to note that the country is in shambles because rich people like Donald Trump skip out on paying any taxes at all while honest, hard-working people like you and me pay diligently every year. And you want him to be your president so he can, what, become part of the same political establishment that put those loopholes in there in the first place? Not paying taxes might make Trump "smart" but it makes your personal tax burden higher. It's a hallmark of Trump's MO to screw over the little guy. That's you, isn't it? So why do you support that?
You don't want to risk $2500, that's fine. But I'm not going to go longer than 4-1 for someone who so boldly predicts "Trump is going to win in a landslide." Make the $1000 bet at 4-1 to win my $4000 or walk back your hollow (and clearly incorrect) boast.
How much tax does the Trump empire contribute annually? Probably quite a lot, as all businesses do at the end of a barrel.
Can you explain justification for the Clinton Foundation taking in 2 billion and only 114 million of that going to "charity".The rest was expenses for salaries and such. Even poorly managed charitable organizations manage to get 75% to the underlying cause. What is the Clinton Foundation providing to draw such contribution?
Don't let it bother you though. Hillary has us plebes back.
I will do $2500 to your $25000 but that is the limit of my generosity. Even you said it was a great deal. What's stopping you? I am in my hollow awaiting your reply. Failure to accept is akin to passing up a sale on filet mignon at a chicken bologna price.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAre you actually as partisan nutball as you sound in your posts, or are you just trolling/posturing/amusing yourself?
Personal insult -- three-day suspension. I'm not fooled by hiding insults in a rhetorical question.
Quote: boymimboHillary explains why she stayed with Bill in her book and several times on the record. But if you to bring up fidelity or lack of strength, what is the equivalent argument for Donald, who has documented cases of infidelity in his various marriages.
What I have brought up is not the infidelity itself, but rather brought up self-respect. She has none. It is sort of like back in high school where everyone sees a guy who treats his girl like crap yet the girl stays with him. Everyone wonders what is wrong with her. Hillary did not just stay with Bill, but defended him every inch of the way. She is a woman who just wants status and power no matter what she has to put up with to get it.
Quote:Are you a strong woman? How do you know? I know plenty of strong women who have been cheated on who have worked through the problem with their spouse.
Nope, I am a guy. But I know what a attribute a strong woman has. And being cool with a husband who cheats on her is not one of them. Attacking the women he cheats on and letting him get away with it is not one of them. See, Hillary did not "work through the problem" but she helped him get away with his behavior.
[I suppose our definition of "strong woman" differs. Mine requires being more than the boss's wife.
Absolutely! At the very least, almost every statement is signaled as being likely or unlikely -- that is, >50% or <50%.Quote: MaxPenDo people normally assign probabilities to every statement they make?
"I don't think it will rain tomorrow." -- <50%
"I'll definitely go to the party." -- 100%
"There's no way in hell I'd ever eat a cockroach." -- 0%
"Trump is going to win in a landslide." -- >50%
Bottom line, you won't back up your claim. Demanding odds proves only that you think Trump *won't* win in a landslide. Big deal, I believe that too. So does everybody else. Prove your actual claim by backing it with a bet, or else you show that you don't really believe in a landslide victory for Trump.
Exactly. Insisting on 10-1 odds (vs. 4-1, which is extremely favorable for an event with p>0.5) is especially egregious. Actions speak louder than words.Quote: MichaelBluejayBottom line, you won't back up your claim. Demanding odds only proves that you think Trump *won't* win in a landslide. Big deal, I believe that too. So does everybody else. Prove your actual claim by backing it with a bet, or else you show that you don't really believe in a landslide victory for Trump.
It should be troubling that Trump's character flaw of stubbornly clinging to objectively refuted assertions is rubbing off on his supporters.
Anyway--more interesting news.
Quote:Trump’s casino company "funneled" at least $68,000 in late 1998 to a consulting firm that traveled to the island in search of business opportunities on Trump's behalf, Newsweek reported in its cover story called “The Castro Connection.” The article alleges the consultant then billed Trump’s company and instructed his employees on how to make it look as if the trip had been connected to a Catholic charity
Read more: http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/09/report-trump-violated-cuba-embargo-105927#ixzz4LfRm692o
The only way I see the debates tilting anything in Trump's favor is if he changes his demeanor (highly unlikely) and also gets under Hillary's skin and causes her to lose her cool (also highly unlikely). If both of them display the same demeanors as in the first debate, I can't see how Trump gains any ground from those events.
Also, more and more scandals keep getting uncovered with respect to Trump (financial fraud, misuse of funds, asking rally attendees to identify if they're not Christian -- and then joking about throwing them out, etc.) while all the news on Hillary is old and rehashed. So I only see that working against Trump.
While I wonder what WikiLeaks is planning next month, it will have to be a doozy to significantly tilt things toward Trump. I think he's in a big hole and would need a significant effort to make a comeback. But as I've suggested before, that may be as he wants it. And in the bigger picture, that'd certainly be best for the GOP: Trump loses, blames a rigged system, and starts his Internet media empire. When the GOP fields a proper adult in 2020, we can have a proper contest of ideas and policies, not a campaign based on insult comedy or pandering to fear and loathing. Or maybe the GOP splits and we get an alt-right party and a proper conservative party. That'd be fine too.
Since Trump said he would release his tax returns, should he release them even after(if) he becomes President?
Curious if any of the pro-Trump people think he should not keep his word. He said he would more than once actually.
Instead, he should order the IRS to immediately terminate the audit of Trump's tax returns. To anyone else, that would be considered an enormous benefit. But Trump would be forced to spin how *not* being under an audit was so terrible, and he'd have to find another excuse to not release his taxes. But he'll never release his taxes in time for anyone to care.
Really starting to believe Trump is working on a matching set of silver bracelets, instead of the US Presidency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-lacks-the-certification-required-for-charities-that-solicit-money/2016/09/29/7dac6a68-8658-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html
Quote: articleUnlike his father’s charity, however, the Eric Trump Foundation has registered to solicit funds in the state and files an annual audit report. The two Trump foundations share an accountant, Donald Bender of the firm WeiserMazars.
I wonder what the penalty is for willful false filings for eight years?
Quote: MathExtremist
Instead, he should order the IRS to immediately terminate the audit of Trump's tax returns.
Why? Why should the POTUS be meddling in that?
Quote: MathExtremistObama has the power to order and release Trump's taxes. But he shouldn't do that.
POTUS has the power to order a citizen to release his tax returns? Care to clarify?
When Trump is elected his returns get made public by law. Until then he has the right to keep them private.
Quote: rxwineCurious if any of the pro-Trump people think he should not keep his word.
You really couldn't see that one coming?Quote: AZDuffmanWhen Trump is elected his returns get made public by law. Until then he has the right to keep them private.
That's only their Polls-Only model. Their Polls-Plus model shows Florida and Nevada still red.Quote: MathExtremistNotably, the FiveThirtyEight model has flipped both Florida and Nevada back into the lean-blue column from the lean-red spot where they've been for the past few weeks.
I'm still worried about the theory that the polls significantly underestimate Trump support, because people are embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they intend to vote for him. If that's true, Trump might really be ahead.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat's only their Polls-Only model. Their Polls-Plus model shows Florida and Nevada still red.
I'm still worried about the theory that the polls significantly underestimate Trump support, because people are embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they intend to vote for him. If that's true, Trump might really be ahead.
This theory has never made sense to me.
Have you seem Trump supporters? They're proud to wear their racism and misogyny on their sleeves by calling themselves "deplorables." Why would they be embarrassed to tell a pollster they support him?
If there are embarrassed Trump supporters, I'd wager that there are also some women who publicly say they will vote for Trump, but will vote for Hillary in the privacy of the polling booth.
The times on these tweets: 3:20 a.m., 5:14 a.m., 5:19 a.m., 5:30 a.m.:
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat's only their Polls-Only model. Their Polls-Plus model shows Florida and Nevada still red.
I'm still worried about the theory that the polls significantly underestimate Trump support, because people are embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they intend to vote for him. If that's true, Trump might really be ahead.
Quote: ams288This theory has never made sense to me.
Have you seem Trump supporters? They're proud to wear their racism and misogyny on their sleeves by calling themselves "deplorables." Why would they be embarrassed to tell a pollster they support him?
If there are embarrassed Trump supporters, I'd wager that there are also some women who publicly say they will vote for Trump, but will vote for Hillary in the privacy of the polling booth.
It makes a lot more sense than you seem to think--have you seen the way people talk to, and about, Trump supporters? I am not talking about here on this silly board thread, but in actual conversations. We've moved way past the 'agree to disagree" type of conversation into actual rifts between people because they intend to vote for someone who others think is not qualified. There is a nastiness to the conversations that makes folks just want to not talk about it at all. Instead of actually trying to sway opinions with some facts and coherent thoughts, people just get nasty. Funny thing is that those are a lot of the same people who talk about Trump's incoherent thoughts...
Will it sway the election? I have no idea. I just believe that there is more of it than happens in most election years and that it could make a difference.
Quote: RonCIt makes a lot more sense than you seem to think--have you seen the way people talk to, and about, Trump supporters? I am not talking about here on this silly board thread, but in actual conversations. We've moved way past the 'agree to disagree" type of conversation into actual rifts between people because they intend to vote for someone who others think is not qualified. There is a nastiness to the conversations that makes folks just want to not talk about it at all. Instead of actually trying to sway opinions with some facts and coherent thoughts, people just get nasty. Funny thing is that those are a lot of the same people who talk about Trump's incoherent thoughts...
Will it sway the election? I have no idea. I just believe that there is more of it than happens in most election years and that it could make a difference.
Reminds me of 2008 when people thought Obama's polls were overinflated because of the Bradley Effect.
I'm not talking about the hard-core supporters who go to rallies and think that Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm talking about the unaffiliated people in the middle.Quote: ams288This theory has never made sense to me. Have you seem Trump supporters? They're proud to wear their racism and misogyny on their sleeves by calling themselves "deplorables." Why would they be embarrassed to tell a pollster they support him?
The U.S. is roughly 1/3 left, 1/3 right, and 1/3 middle/independent. The left votes for Hillary, the right votes for Trump, and that leaves a huge number of people in the middle. They're the ones who are going to decide who's president. And many of those who intend to vote for Trump might feel uneasy about saying so.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI'm not talking about the hard-core supporters who go to rallies and think that Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm talking about the unaffiliated people in the middle.
The U.S. is roughly 1/3 left, 1/3 right, and 1/3 middle/independent. The left votes for Hillary, the right votes for Trump, and that leaves a huge number of people in the middle. They're the ones who are going to decide who's president. And many of those who intend to vote for Trump might feel uneasy about saying so.
It's easy to defend voting for Trump. Hillary's platform is unimpressive and represents that ultimate in "politics as usual", which most people view as a corrupt and broken "democracy". I think the voting public's disdain for lack of action in Washington combined with the xenophobia and racial unrest is leading to the "great white" movement that we are seeing today and allows a candidate like Trump split the ranks and give him a 40% chance of winning.
I am betting WikiLeaks will play a role in this in October provided that Trump can keep it together.
Nobody seems to ever mention the racist comments Obama or Clinton say. For example, "Muslims are peaceful" is racist and prejudice by definition.
Do you also agree that tax fraud is okay? What about embezzlement of charitable funds? Or willful breach of contract?
Quote: MathExtremistYou want to overlook his egregious race-baiting? That's your prerogative. Maybe you even agree with him that African-Americans were better off as slaves.
Do you also agree that tax fraud is okay? What about embezzlement of charitable funds? Or willful breach of contract?
Not saying hi has any tax fraud. But if he did not intend it then by current standards isn't the government supposed to ignore it?
It'd be the ultimate trolling of Trump.
Quote: ams288Obama should offer Trump a deal: Release your tax returns before the election and I'll pardon you for any tax fraud you've committed.
It'd be the ultimate trolling of Trump.
Obama is a troll so he might do it. It would be a break from the hate and race baiting from the Hillary supporters.
So now Islam is a race?Quote: RS"Muslims are peaceful" is racist and prejudice by definition.
Quote: AZDuffmanObama is a troll so he might do it.
I hope you're right! But knowing your track record with being right, I doubt it.... I'm still waiting for that 2013 recession you said was coming when Obama got reelected.
Quote: ams288I hope you're right! But knowing your track record with being right, I doubt it.... I'm still waiting for that 2013 recession you said was coming when Obama got reelected.
According to the conventional conservative logic, Obama was the anti-christ sent here by Bill Ayers to destroy the world. Yeah, they've been pretty bad at predicting things lately.
Quote: ams288I hope you're right! But knowing your track record with being right, I doubt it.... I'm still waiting for that 2013 recession you said was coming when Obama got reelected.
Nope no full recession. Just lousy growth. But by Obamas own standard it was a horrible economy then and since.
How does one unintentionally file fraudulent tax returns and not pay taxes? How does one unintentionally steal money from a charity and spend it on legal bills or a giant portrait of themselves?Quote: AZDuffmanNot saying hi has any tax fraud. But if he did not intend it then by current standards isn't the government supposed to ignore it?
Quote: AZDuffmanNope no full recession. Just lousy growth. But by Obamas own standard it was a horrible economy then and since.
Glad you can admit you were wrong.
Quote: MathExtremistHow does one unintentionally file fraudulent tax returns and not pay taxes? How does one unintentionally steal money from a charity and spend it on legal bills or a giant portrait of themselves?
I don't know. How does one unintentionally break laws and security measures by setting up a private email server under their sink?
Actually tax laws are so complex it is fairly easy to make a tax mistake.
Quote: MaxPenHillary could not drink water. With her condition she tends to aspirate liquids when swallowing which causes choking. Myasthenia Gravis look it up and you will understand. Doubt we will hear much from her til next week, tonight took a lot out of her.
Sometimes things can be lost in the clutter of this thread, but I'd just like to circle back to this nonsense post where MaxPen claimed we won't hear much from Hillary til next week because the debate took a lot out of her.
She's had campaign events every day of the week. She's talked with reporters on her plane multiple times. (Trump hasn't held a press conference since July 27, he's currently stuck in the Fox News bubble where he will only take easy questions from Fox & Friends, Bill O'Reilly, and Hannity).
So yeah. MaxPen was wrong. *gasp*
If anything, her kicking Trump's butt in the debate has given her campaign its second wind...
And the real polls, you know, scientific ones, the ones that actually come close to the real results, have come in which is showing Clinton gains, nationwide, following the debate. So much for the online polls. Florida has gone blue since yesterday (no doubt due to the scandal around his attempting to do business with Cuba), and she is likely LEADING in Ohio.
Assuming that Trump's professional tax accountants are filing his tax returns, I doubt that they make that many mistakes. I doubt his returns are even under audit, not all of them anyway. And no, there is no requirement for a sitting president to release their tax return.
It's starting to snowball as he becomes more and more unhinged. All Clinton has to do is watch it unravel.
