Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
they need an option to delete a double post

Or alternatively its statements not supported by facts not in evidence your honor.
I get the same arguments from the other side. Admittedly with HRC and DT running they are completely interchangeable now.

I must just be seeing double tonight, there were two posts earlier.

ON that note, I discovered asomething called XO quality brandy. Nice!

But speaking of facts like "Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala" isn't a insult or demeaning, it's a fact. It's not droll, It's just the reality of it.

Its a statement without proof.

here's the proof:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

click to see the brain scans.

Unless they brain scanned everyone in the US, it means what we call buppkiss.

so buppkiss means a study, that was independently repeated and they found the same results, with another study adding to the results shows it's possible to predict if someone is liberal/conservative by studying brain activity. That does add up to a lot of proof.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think what could hurt Trump on the tax story front is the fact that he somehow managed to lose nearly a billion dollars in one year in a good economy nationally (though not so much in NJ). If Clinton can take Trump's surrogates words from this weekend (Christie and Gulliani were both spinning this as a story that suggested Trump was a "genius") and ask "how does a genius lose a billion dollars in a year?" she might be onto something.

Meh... at least he takes risks... (until he files for bankruptcy )

IMO, there are other things more worthy to ding Trump than this. I don't think the public, in general, really cares about poltician's tax filings. (unless there some illegal activities of course).

i think they care a lot when a supposedly super rich guy who brags about his wealth turns out never to have paid income taxes, when they are. care like want to over turn his limo and tar and feather him level care.

Most people don't realize how little (as a percentage of income) the truly wealthy people pay in taxes. It was one of the eye-opening things I learned when I worked in financial services.

Taxes are for chumps...like all of us. And yes, it's very much a relevant topic when you're running a campaign based on populist anger.

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think what could hurt Trump on the tax story front is the fact that he somehow managed to lose nearly a billion dollars in one year in a good economy nationally (though not so much in NJ). If Clinton can take Trump's surrogates words from this weekend (Christie and Gulliani were both spinning this as a story that suggested Trump was a "genius") and ask "how does a genius lose a billion dollars in a year?" she might be onto something.

Meh... at least he takes risks... (until he files for bankruptcy )

IMO, there are other things more worthy to ding Trump than this. I don't think the public, in general, really cares about poltician's tax filings. (unless there some illegal activities of course).

i think they care a lot when a supposedly super rich guy who brags about his wealth turns out never to have paid income taxes, when they are. care like want to over turn his limo and tar and feather him level care.

Most people don't realize how little (as a percentage of income) the truly wealthy people pay in taxes. It was one of the eye-opening things I learned when I worked in financial services.

Taxes are for chumps...like all of us. And yes, it's very much a relevant topic when you're running a campaign based on populist anger.

Not so much populist anger as swivel-eyed incoherent rage and it's all somebody else's goddamn fault, but yeah, your point still stands.

so buppkiss means a study, that was independently repeated and they found the same results, with another study adding to the results shows it's possible to predict if someone is liberal/conservative by studying brain activity. That does add up to a lot of proof.

Strange that looks like two small studies to me with others using it to play statistics games. Although I am not a scientist, I did stay at a Holiday Inn.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
-Bob, from accounting.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
they need an option to delete a double post

Or alternatively its statements not supported by facts not in evidence your honor.
I get the same arguments from the other side. Admittedly with HRC and DT running they are completely interchangeable now.

I must just be seeing double tonight, there were two posts earlier.

ON that note, I discovered asomething called XO quality brandy. Nice!

But speaking of facts like "Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala" isn't a insult or demeaning, it's a fact. It's not droll, It's just the reality of it.

Its a statement without proof.

here's the proof:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

click to see the brain scans.

Unless they brain scanned everyone in the US, it means what we call buppkiss.

Someone doesn't understand how representative samples, statistics, and studies work. You do NOT need to study everyone for a study to be valid.

Regarding the pending WikiLeaks announcement, Fox news has the following quote.

Some believe the video announcement by the WikiLeaks founder could be an "October surprise" geared towards the U.S. presidential election. Supporters of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump have said they believe the announcement will be damaging to the candidacy of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Given how the last release turned out, I'm thinking this could very well be much ado about nothing. I expect to see one or two outlets trying to make hay out of it but digging into the details will fail to uncover any sort of smoking gun.

My cynicism leads me to believe this cancelled announcement by Assange is a publicity stunt.

Still, my track record relating to prognostication isn't the best we've ever seen on Dakka, so there may yet be hope for the Trump campaign.

HRC could be revealed to bathe in the blood of maidens, a la Countess Bathory, and she would still be of better experience, temperment and gravitas to lead the Free World than Trump.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
they need an option to delete a double post

Or alternatively its statements not supported by facts not in evidence your honor.
I get the same arguments from the other side. Admittedly with HRC and DT running they are completely interchangeable now.

I must just be seeing double tonight, there were two posts earlier.

ON that note, I discovered asomething called XO quality brandy. Nice!

But speaking of facts like "Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala" isn't a insult or demeaning, it's a fact. It's not droll, It's just the reality of it.

Its a statement without proof.

here's the proof:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

click to see the brain scans.

Unless they brain scanned everyone in the US, it means what we call buppkiss.

Someone doesn't understand how representative samples, statistics, and studies work. You do NOT need to study everyone for a study to be valid.

Be careful pointing fingers. This was a study of a whopping 90 people. Not a great sample size. And it lacks variety- the study even admits that. So you have a pretty poor sampling.

 feeder wrote:
HRC could be revealed to bathe in the blood of maidens, a la Countess Bathory, and she would still be of better experience, temperment and gravitas to lead the Free World than Trump.

When your standard for suitability is Donald fething Trump, that really isn't saying much. A trained monkey would be more suitable than Trump.

 jmurph wrote:


Be careful pointing fingers. This was a study of a whopping 90 people. Not a great sample size. And it lacks variety- the study even admits that. So you have a pretty poor sampling.

that was the first study, you forgot the second & third study. It's hardly an extra ordinary claim though, the brain has been studied at length and they know what most of the dangly bits do, not just in humans but other animals as well. It's not like they claimed the found the answer to life, the universe and everything encoded on their brain waves, nor gods final message to his creation.

it's a rather simple claim based on all the studies of the brain.

The GOP House would NOT like this scenario to happen:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/



That'd be so 2016.

 whembly wrote:
The GOP House would NOT like this scenario to happen:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/



That'd be so 2016.

Hah! Not likely.

If the D's take the house, I'll change my profile pic to whatever you want.

That election result would amuse me

 whembly wrote:
The GOP House would NOT like this scenario to happen:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/



That'd be so 2016.

Nah, the GOP would be ok with that. Establishment GOP and Libertarian policy is very similar, they would get a coalition going toot sweet.

Fun part: They don't need a coalition. The House just gets to pick the next president in case of no one party having the majority in the electoral college.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Fun part: They don't need a coalition. The House just gets to pick the next president in case of no one party having the majority in the electoral college.

I don't get it. Don't the Dems get the majority in this scenario?

Edit: wait I get it.

The GOP still gets to dictate policy if the Libertarians vote with them in this scenario though correct?

 feeder wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Fun part: They don't need a coalition. The House just gets to pick the next president in case of no one party having the majority in the electoral college.

I don't get it. Don't the Dems get the majority in this scenario?

Edit: wait I get it.

The GOP still gets to dictate policy if the Libertarians vote with them in this scenario though correct?

No.

IF no one gets to 270 Electoral Vote, then the HOUSE gets to pick the next President on simple majority vote.

In the above scenario, only Clinton, Trump or Johnson would be eligible to receive a vote at the House.

My contention is that the GOP House members do NOT want to pick the next President.

A) They ain't going to pick Clinton.

B) If they pick Trump, then they'll 100% own his failures.

C) If they pick Johnson, then the Clinton / Trump wings would hammer the House.

Would make the mid-terms elections in 2019 veeeeeeeeeery interesting.

But, alas, this election isn't as close as you guys think it is... Hillary is going to win by at least 10%.

 Breotan wrote:

Given how the last release turned out, I'm thinking this could very well be much ado about nothing. I expect to see one or two outlets trying to make hay out of it but digging into the details will fail to uncover any sort of smoking gun. on Dakka,

That's pretty much the entire history of Wikileaks.

"We reveal secret government documents about things you already know about and that reveal little more than the background hum dum of running the government but don't worry because they were trying to hide these VITAL documents pertaining to events you already know about so thank us for being edgy rebels!"

There's a reason the Panama Papers weren't given to these jokers.

But of course, when it comes to Hillary all you need is a piece of paper saying she ate at TGI Friday's one time, and you'll have a dozen news reports about how she's in Big Sit Down's pocket within four hours.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Given how the last release turned out, I'm thinking this could very well be much ado about nothing. I expect to see one or two outlets trying to make hay out of it but digging into the details will fail to uncover any sort of smoking gun. on Dakka,

That's pretty much the entire history of Wikileaks.

"We reveal secret government documents about things you already know about and that reveal little more than the background hum dum of running the government but don't worry because they were trying to hide these VITAL documents pertaining to events you already know about so thank us for being edgy rebels!"

There's a reason the Panama Papers weren't given to these jokers.

But of course, when it comes to Hillary all you need is a piece of paper saying she ate at TGI Friday's one time, and you'll have a dozen news reports about how she's in Big Sit Down's pocket within four hours.

I like the fact that at some point a few years ago she evidently said "can't we just drone the guy?" in a meeting, and this is now a smoking gun that proves that the announcement was cancelled because Hillary was 100% for reals going to arrange a drone strike on the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

 whembly wrote:

IF no one gets to 270 Electoral Vote, then the HOUSE gets to pick the next President on simple majority vote.

Ah, but which House gets to make the selection? The old one (pre-election) or the new one that just got voted in? And which one would actually want to do it?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

IF no one gets to 270 Electoral Vote, then the HOUSE gets to pick the next President on simple majority vote.

Ah, but which House gets to make the selection? The old one (pre-election) or the new one that just got voted in? And which one would actually want to do it?

The one currently in session in December after the Electoral College votes and produces no winner. Even if the outcome is obvious on the day of the election, the House can't legally act until the Electoral College hands in their vote which is usually in December.

 gorgon wrote:
LOL. That's like saying that the screwdriver has made the wrench obsolete. Very different tools with very different strengths.

You know what still works great in the right application? Direct mail.

No, because the argument wasn't that one has replaced the other. The argument was that one no longer works as it used to. That other kinds of advertising and marketing are developing at the same time that TV is in decline is related, but not a key part of the decline of TV.

It is more like noting that WWI saw the decline of cavalry as a major battlefield element and at the same time saw the tank develop as a major element. The decline of one and the rise of the other are related, but it wasn't a case of one replacing the other.

 Goliath wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Given how the last release turned out, I'm thinking this could very well be much ado about nothing. I expect to see one or two outlets trying to make hay out of it but digging into the details will fail to uncover any sort of smoking gun. on Dakka,

That's pretty much the entire history of Wikileaks.

"We reveal secret government documents about things you already know about and that reveal little more than the background hum dum of running the government but don't worry because they were trying to hide these VITAL documents pertaining to events you already know about so thank us for being edgy rebels!"

There's a reason the Panama Papers weren't given to these jokers.

But of course, when it comes to Hillary all you need is a piece of paper saying she ate at TGI Friday's one time, and you'll have a dozen news reports about how she's in Big Sit Down's pocket within four hours.

I like the fact that at some point a few years ago she evidently said "can't we just drone the guy?" in a meeting, and this is now a smoking gun that proves that the announcement was cancelled because Hillary was 100% for reals going to arrange a drone strike on the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

I think the Trump campaign, of all things, would know about sarcastic remarks, considering that's always his excuse when he says something reprehensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Fun part: They don't need a coalition. The House just gets to pick the next president in case of no one party having the majority in the electoral college.

I don't get it. Don't the Dems get the majority in this scenario?

Edit: wait I get it.

The GOP still gets to dictate policy if the Libertarians vote with them in this scenario though correct?

No.

IF no one gets to 270 Electoral Vote, then the HOUSE gets to pick the next President on simple majority vote.

In the above scenario, only Clinton, Trump or Johnson would be eligible to receive a vote at the House.

My contention is that the GOP House members do NOT want to pick the next President.

A) They ain't going to pick Clinton.

B) If they pick Trump, then they'll 100% own his failures.

C) If they pick Johnson, then the Clinton / Trump wings would hammer the House.

Would make the mid-terms elections in 2019 veeeeeeeeeery interesting.

But, alas, this election isn't as close as you guys think it is... Hillary is going to win by at least 10%.

I think it would probably go to whomever go the most popular vote. If it's Hillary, voting for her wouldn't be popular with the rest of their party, but going against the people's voice to that degree would make reps in swing districts get destroyed, and even less solid districts viable for D takeover. I think enough R's would cross the isle to make up the 60. Then again, I may just have too much hope for politicians doing the right thing.

 jmurph wrote:
Does anyone think this tax deal actually hurts Trump? I don't think it does anymore than being and millionaire already would.

The Twitter outburst certainly reinforced his image as a think skinned blowhard, but we already knew that, so don't see a net change there.

This is really the great mystery of the campaign. Trump has long since established himself as not just a terrible political candidate, but a terrible human being. Despite this the guy is on track for something north of 50 million votes. So if another scandal comes along, well it can't establish Trump as being any worse than he is, so what harm can it do?

Despite this, we've already seen in this campaign a few times some big movements in polling numbers. Post conventions Clinton led by 8 to 9 points. Before the debates that lead was down to 1-2. Now its back out to about 4, possibly more as we've seen little polling that is all post-debate.

Was this people seeing Trump on stage, realising he's a halfwit and deciding to vote against him? Was it people seeing Clinton on stage and realising she's actually quite knowledgable and not an awful, lying robot machine? Or was it that people who'd accepted Trump calling Mexicans rapists and POWs not war heroes... suddenly got bothered when he called a woman fat?

Dunno. Polls are weird because people are weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
NYT is trying to pull a Harry Reid imo.

It's a bit different. Harry Reid was straight up bullshitting to force a response from Romney. The NYT has actual copies of Trump's taxes, and what it shows is a real story.

What it should highlight, is that the wealthy and powerful has LEGAL means in the tax code to pay little or no taxes.

Sort of. There's some outrageous tax allowances for real estate brokers in your tax code. There's a joke that floats around that the government would save money by making real estate tax exempt

The other part of the story is that Trump hasn't paid any tax because he hasn't made any money. He took his Dad's money, started with some hit and miss deals but won overall, then he bet huge on some really highly leveraged investments, particularly the Atlantic City casinos. This was a bad bet recklessly undertaken, and it cost lost Trump an insane amount of money. Wiped most of his asset base away. Remember that the return we've seen was from 1995, almost a billion in losses in that year, but that's actually three years after Trump's debt position became critical. It's likely there were also big losses in 1993 and 1994.

What's happened since is that Trump has never made enough money to wipe off that tax loss. He quite rightly learned to shy away from big leveraging, and while that was smart it also meant he was never going to catch up to make back what he lost. Instead he's gone in to petty little investments, steaks, water, mortgages, pretty much all of which failed, but none of which really exposed Trump all that much. Where he has been successful is in selling the Trump brand, charging a fee to other companies who want to add his name to a development to get attention. He also made a couple of hundred million as a reality show host. At the same time the real estate he has managed to hang on to has grown nicely in value, but that has no tax effect.

The story here is that when Trump actually tried to be a big wheeler dealer, he sucked at it big time. He just about wiped his fortune, and it took some very fortunate circumstances, and some good dealing, for Trump to get out of that situation. Since then he's made his money as a celebrity, selling his brand and basically no different to Kim Kardashian, except Kim is a lot better at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I have no idea.

If it's real, the leaker and possible the NYT broke federal laws releasing government papers.

They're real. One of Trump's accountants from 1995 confirmed it. And perhaps more tellingly, while the Trump campaign hasn't confirmed, you'll note they also haven't denied. If the return was fake we'd have seen a denial with an hour of publication.

The leaker broke federal laws. The NYT is on pretty solid ground though - there probably isn't a stronger first amendment case imaginable than releasing key information about a presidential candidate. Where the NYT might be in trouble is if the courts demand them to reveal their source.

I think there's a pretty decent chunk of voters that don't really want to vote for Clinton, but really don't want trump to win. I think they're voting strategically, either for a third party when she's way ahead, or moving back to her when things get tight.

Trump is polling in the low 40s, which is only a few points off pace for what McCain got in 2008. Since there's little evidence that trump is really winning with new voters, it looks like he's pretty much getting the core GOP support. For example, he's doing very well with evangelicals.

The only real demographic shift has been high school educated white voters going even more strongly GOP then prior years, while college educated whites are slightly more dem for the first time ever. So you see a few changes to the map, with Ohio and Iowa turning red while NC turns blue. With Virginia appearing to be joining the blue firewall, Trumps path is really narrow.

Somewhere, Jeb Bush is staring at 538 with a glass of bourbon, wondering what might have been.

 whembly wrote:
Good for NY AG...

Now do the Clinton Foundation.

Nope, see you've missed the important parts again. Trump's charity lacks the proper certification to take money as a charity, and there's been multiple uses of charity funds that are extremely questionable. Whereas the Clinton Foundation... has had lots of accusations against it, and not one example of anyone actually doing anything wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Meh... at least he takes risks... (until he files for bankruptcy )

IMO, there are other things more worthy to ding Trump than this.

He took risks. He sucked at it, he lost at least $900 million, probably a lot more. He just about wiped out the fortune that his Dad left him. Since then Trump hasn't taken risks, most of his money has come from selling his brand, from pretending to be good at business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
We'll get riled up if there's some illegal gak going on... but, if strangely, most people don't get all that riled up when the rich (or corporations) legally pays little or no federal taxes. (see GE or the NYT recently).

Umm... GE and the NYT didn't pay taxes because they didn't make any money. It should be pretty obvious that if you don't make money, you don't pay tax.

Trump, similarly, lost a pile of money, and has been able to use that giant loss to offset future profits. This is basically fair, if you lose $100,000 in one year and make $200,000 the next, you shouldn't be taxed significantly differently to the guy who made $50,000 in each year.

The issue with the US tax code in this instance is in how it treats real estate. Ridiculously it allows depreciation of the building, but does nothing to account for the growth in the overall value of the land & building combined. So Trump's 40 Wall Street has been giving him a nice write off each year for depreciation, despite the building and its land growing in value to about a billion dollars. It'd be unworkable to tax the growth in the asset from year to year, but what should be done is to stop allowing the depreciation claim on what is an overall appreciating asset.

Lots of rumors and speculations about the tax returns that were leaked with not much proof of the source, but it looks like a popular theory is that they were send off by his ex-wife. She would have her own copy if they were joint returns, and it would be perfectly legal for her to share her own copy with newspapers if that were the case.

That would be tasty source, wouldn't it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Unless they brain scanned everyone in the US, it means what we call buppkiss.

Is this going to be another one of those things where Fraz chooses to deny the existence of sampling?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:
Be careful pointing fingers. This was a study of a whopping 90 people. Not a great sample size. And it lacks variety- the study even admits that. So you have a pretty poor sampling.

90 people in a first study, with results verified in second and third studies is actually pretty decent. Remember, this isn't a cancer drug we're talking about here, it's a pretty minor piece of research. Expecting brain scans of thousands of people is creating an expectation that will never be met.

And it isn't as though the claim is that extraordinary. Brain chemistry and wiring influences perception of events and decision making, and political beliefs are examples of such. It'd be very strange if political beliefs were independent of the make up of the brain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If the D's take the house, I'll change my profile pic to whatever you want.

It isn't speculating on the Democrats taking the house. It's speculating on a possible scenario where Johnson takes New Mexico, and a virtual tied race everywhere else leaves both Clinton and Trump short of 270 electoral votes. In that situation it is the House who decides the next president. It would be a Republican controlled house.

Would the republican house pick Trump, just because he's their candidate, even though they hate him and he's likely to be the worst president in living memory? Probably.

But maybe they'd pick Johnson, because he's pretty solidly Republican, and not Trump. It's possible.

Or maybe they'd pick Clinton? 538, bless their cotton socks, actually speculates about Clinton getting the job as the Republican house recognizes that she won the popular vote. Because the party that's blocking a Supreme Court nomination until a Republican is in the Whitehouse would suddenly start to give things to the Democrats because the people have spoken


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Ah, but which House gets to make the selection? The old one (pre-election) or the new one that just got voted in? And which one would actually want to do it?

They would both be Republican so it doesn't matter. And neither would want the job.

Note I'm not saying Democrats can't win the House, if the election is a blow out it becomes possible. But in the case of a very close run Presidential race, like the above scenario, then the House will absolutely remain Republican.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
I think there's a pretty decent chunk of voters that don't really want to vote for Clinton, but really don't want trump to win. I think they're voting strategically, either for a third party when she's way ahead, or moving back to her when things get tight.

Yeah, and as a result you see a big push among many right wing pundits to claim Clinton is well in front, to stop those 'oh gak better make Trump doesn't happen votes'. Similarly, you see a similar push among Clinton pundits to say that the election really is close, so you better vote to make sure Trump doesn't happen.

Just another one of the many similarities to 2000.

 whembly wrote:

IF no one gets to 270 Electoral Vote, then the HOUSE gets to pick the next President on simple majority vote.

Riffing off this?

“…and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President…”

The last Congressional decision was in 1877, and it was based on voter fraud. In this age it is highly unlikely that the House could go against the vote. At least without a ton of litigation.

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/10/03/yes-virginia-aliens-are-registered-and-voting-and-in-pennsylvania-by-the-thousands/

Well, it looks like that "non-existent" voter registration fraud is an actual thing, and apparently pretty rampant. So, if over 1,000 people ADMIT to improper voter registration in just 8 counties, what would that correlate to across the nation?