1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#652 Feb 02 2016 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'm glad we've moved away from governmental issues and are just having a pig party.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#653 Feb 02 2016 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I really - really - hesitate to ask, but... what's a pig party?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#654 Feb 02 2016 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
A gathering where everyone tries to bring the ugliest person they can find.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#655 Feb 02 2016 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I want to have a pig party where I roast an entire pig... Seems like a fun time.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#656 Feb 02 2016 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Isn't being ugly enough of a burden without having people deliberately ridicule you?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#657 Feb 02 2016 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Sure, I guess they'd like it. Only pay the small price of near universal disenfranchisement.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#658 Feb 02 2016 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Samira wrote:
Isn't being ugly enough of a burden without having people deliberately ridicule you?


I tried inviting someone to one of these once, but it turns out that she was beautiful all along; all she had to do was take off her ridiculous glasses and get a hair cut. It was very socially embarrassing for me. What's more, of course, when everyone saw how beautiful she really was, it was assumed I was her guest...

Then a giant boar burst in and gored everyone to death, which we all agreed was very karmic and a fitting punishment for all of us for engaging in something so stupid.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#659 Feb 02 2016 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#660 Feb 02 2016 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I'll pay for this!

Edited, Feb 2nd 2016 12:14pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#661 Feb 02 2016 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll pay for this!


That's what she said.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#662 Feb 02 2016 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I doubt very many Cruz voters would shift to Trump. He's mostly got the evangelical and angry patriot crowd supporting him, neither of which really fit with Trump.

Last I knew, Trump was winning a plurality of evangelicals


Which in no way matched even vaguely with how evangelical voters actually voted in the caucus. Shocking really. Oh wait. Not really at all.

I'll also point out that just because someone identifies as an evangelical christian does not mean that they primarily vote based on that one aspect of their identity. No one's voting for Trump because of his strong christian values. Well, maybe some really really stupid people. Maybe.

Quote:
Demea wrote:
Nothing says "libertarian" like an old-money, eminent-domain-abusing crony capitalist!

Anecdotally, all of the Ron Paul supporters I've known have moved to Trump.


Because said set has less to do with actually being libertarian, and much more to do with being young and politically naive and thus falling for the first thing that looks "different".

Edited, Feb 2nd 2016 1:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#663 Feb 02 2016 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
[quote]To be fair, I guess it's slightly better than winner take all.

Clinton and Cruz disagree!


Lol. Um... Did someone point out to Clinton that she only won by 4 delegates, and only because she won 6 out of six precincts that were tied and decided to flip a coin? Had the flips come out evenly, she would have lost. Dunno. I find that somewhat amusing.

Seriously though? Bernie Sanders?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#664 Feb 02 2016 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If she won by four delegates and won 6-6 coin tosses, wouldn't she have won by 1 if she lost half the tosses?

I ask this fully admitting that I've paid minimal attention to the caucus results today and so might be missing something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#665 Feb 02 2016 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
According to the radio while I was driving home, she won 6 coin tosses. But those were not the only 6 coin tosses. A dozen or more existed, which Bernie won some of.

And, those coin tosses were not directly for those delegates, they were at a different level, and level prior to those delegates, to determine some other division of... what ever they were calling them. A pool much larger than the small pool that was divided up to determine who wins.

The 6/6 was misleading, and not directly related by number to the 4 delegates of the margin.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#666 Feb 02 2016 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If she won by four delegates and won 6-6 coin tosses, wouldn't she have won by 1 if she lost half the tosses?


Assuming each was for just one delegate (or each was for an equal number, since I honestly don't know), then if you subtract 3 from her total and add 3 to Bernie's, that results in him wining by 2 delegates (or whatever multiple of delegates each flip represented). 4-3=1 and 0+3=3. 3 is 2 higher than 1.

Math is hard!

And yes, this assumes that each flip represented some positive integer of delegates and each flip on average represents the same number. Point being that had the coin flips split the total number of voters represented by those flps equally, she probably would not have won.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#667 Feb 02 2016 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out that just because someone identifies as an evangelical christian does not mean that they primarily vote based on that one aspect of their identity.
Around here they do. Of course by "around here" I mean "almost anywhere but Southern California".

gbaji wrote:
No one's voting for Trump because of his strong Christian values. Well, maybe some really really stupid people. Maybe.
It's funny because it's true. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#668 Feb 02 2016 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
According to the radio while I was driving home, she won 6 coin tosses. But those were not the only 6 coin tosses. A dozen or more existed, which Bernie won some of.


The source I heard stated that there were 6 and only 6 precincts that came up perfectly even and decided to resolve their count via a coin flip, and that Clinton won all 6. It's entirely possible that source was in error, but if not, and each of those flips represented at least one delegate (which I'm kinda assuming else, why not just proportionately assign the voters/delegates, right?), then the delta represented by the flips coming up unevening more than makes up for the difference in delegates.

Ultimately, it's more or less irrelevant, since the delegates are assigned proportionately, and they effectively tied. I'm just pointing out that there's a pretty huge asterisk next to any attempt by Clinton to make hay out of having "won Iowa".

Quote:
And, those coin tosses were not directly for those delegates, they were at a different level, and level prior to those delegates, to determine some other division of... what ever they were calling them. A pool much larger than the small pool that was divided up to determine who wins.


Yeah. I'm not sure. But I'd think if they were just portions of voter counts making up a single delegate, they would have simply passed a "X number for Clinton, and X number for Sanders" up to the main count. Seems odd to have each precinct (or whatever) count as *one* of "something", in that case. Again though, it's not like I'm totally up on the calculations used in the Iowa Caucus process. I assume that X number of voters counts as a single delegate to be assigned, with each delegate obviously not capable of being split. I'd assume that the only reason for a coin toss is if the voter pool for a given delegate was perfectly even and it was the only way to determine if that delegate went for Clinton or Sanders. Hence, my assumption that each flip represented one delegate either going to Clinton or Sanders. And if she won 6 out of 6 such flips, and only "won" by 4 delegates, then had the flips come up 3/3, Sanders would have won instead.

Quote:
The 6/6 was misleading, and not directly related by number to the 4 delegates of the margin.


I freely admit to making this assumption. But barring someone with greater factual understanding of the process explaining it differently (we're all speculating at this point, right), it does seem like the most logical assumption to make. Again, the only thing that is in discrete "all or nothing" values in the caucus is the delegate assignment. So it seems reasonable to assume that the only reason to flip a coin is if that's the only way to decide if a delegate goes for one candidate or the other. There would be no reason to flip coins for voter counts. They'd just count up the voters and add them to each candidate's tally. I'd assume they'd only flip of the total tally for a given delegate was perfectly even.

If someone has more light to shed though, I'd love to hear more explanation. Again though, my point is more about Clinton not really being able to claim much in terms of "winning" the caucus.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#669 Feb 02 2016 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Bah. Ok. Google to the rescue. Yeah. It looks like there were more coin flips (but no one seems to know how many). And you were correct that these are apparently "county delegates", which only count as a portion of a "state delegate". Which seems like an unusually burdensome process to use.

Regardless, it's hardly the victory that Clinton was probably expecting. Hard to say if Sanders can maintain this momentum though. He'll likely win in NH, cause it's a bastion of nutty liberalness, but I suspect he'll have issues farther down the list. But here's the thing. Sanders should normally be yet another "also ran" candidate, not actually challenging anyone. Which, as I've been saying for months now, says less about his strength as it does about Clinton's weakness.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#670 Feb 02 2016 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Ya, the results were not the best for Clinton, from what has been said. She didn't lose, but she didn't get the win that would be hoped for.

The radio show I was listening to that was talking about the whole 6/6 thing, and how misleading it was to take it on face value, also said that New Hampshire was a likely Bernie win, but as he went farther south it'd be harder to for him to pull off more. They also said that Iowa was not the only place to use coin flips on ties, and to expect some more.

Also commented about how the results in Iowa could stir up doubts on Clinton's electability (is that a word?) among the voters in other primaries. But I took that comment line as just a bit of "We gotta say something" because they didn't really expand upon it much.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#671 Feb 02 2016 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I want to have a pig party where I roast an entire pig... Seems like a fun time.

That's our Independence Day. Well, used to be.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#672 Feb 02 2016 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Bah. Ok. Google to the rescue. Yeah. It looks like there were more coin flips (but no one seems to know how many). And you were correct that these are apparently "county delegates", which only count as a portion of a "state delegate". Which seems like an unusually burdensome process to use.

The Democratic Iowa Caucus is straight up bananas.

Sanders will win in NH. Clinton will win South Carolina and probably Nevada. Clinton will almost certainly win the nomination, albeit not by mid-February or whenever she hoped to win it. She's not a great campaigner though. Or even a good one, really.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#673 Feb 02 2016 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I dunno why they don't just make the candidates race on riding pigs, it would make about as much sense.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#674 Feb 02 2016 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
The Democratic Iowa Caucus is straight up bananas.


It's due to them being children of the corn.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#675 Feb 02 2016 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bah. Ok. Google to the rescue. Yeah. It looks like there were more coin flips (but no one seems to know how many). And you were correct that these are apparently "county delegates", which only count as a portion of a "state delegate". Which seems like an unusually burdensome process to use.

The Democratic Iowa Caucus is straight up bananas.


Hah. Yeah. As I was digging through various articles about the whole coin flip thing, that became increasingly apparent. So I'll use that as my excuse. Smiley: tongue

Quote:
Sanders will win in NH. Clinton will win South Carolina and probably Nevada. Clinton will almost certainly win the nomination, albeit not by mid-February or whenever she hoped to win it.


That sounds about right. I think that a lot of Sander's polling numbers are coming from people who basically know little or nothing about him other than that he's a dark horse candidate who's somehow actually challenging Clinton numerically (well, at least in some polls). Um... I doubt that survives for long once they start actually paying attention to him and his positions. On a national scale, I just don't see anyone who self labels himself as a socialist (with or without the word "Democratic" in front of it) has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Dem nomination, much less the general.

Which, I'm assuming, is what's behind all the polls I've been hearing about proclaiming that Sander's beats every one of the GOP candidates in the "if the election were held today between X and Y..." polls. Those often give a silly advantage to the unknown candidate, and in this case what's "unknown" about Sanders by many people is a huge deal breaker.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#676 Feb 03 2016 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Hah. Yeah. As I was digging through various articles about the whole coin flip thing, that became increasingly apparent. So I'll use that as my excuse. Smiley: tongue

The GOP process is a lot cleaner (straight votes, delegates assigned proportionally) although that still didn't keep them from ******** it up in 2012 and declaring Romney the winner when in fact Santorum placed first.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 267 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (267)