Random News Observations

[brvheart 1,758]

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/clinton-foundation/

[Scrim 115]

She is a completely disgusting snake.

 

To watch all the idealists argue in favor of a person like that is ****ing hilarious and shows just how much personal sovereignty one must surrender to take a side in partisan politics.

 

Anyone who think that woman has an ounce of ideological sincerity is naive to their core. If leftists were cognitively capable of living in reality and judging things on facts rather than elaborate self-bullshitting, they'd examine the actual policies of the Clinton's and realize how totally and completely they do not line up with their principles. NAFTA is a great example where Bob will probably run off to Google and type in "WHY WAS NAFTA ACTUALLY GOOD AND HOW DID IT REALLY CREATE MORE JOBS INSTEAD OF SEND THEM TO MEXICO LIKE EVERYONE SAYS" and post a study, but you can talk to anyone in manufacturing (particularly machinists and plant men), that was absolutely their Waterloo... yet if you listen to Hillary on trade, it's almost as if she wasn't totally on board for the trade policies that sent a ****ton of jobs to Mexico and China.

 

The thing with blue collar guys is that they don't give a **** about academia. They're empiricists. They go by what they can observe rather than what they're told they should think. This is why the Dem's are losing blue collar white guys much in the same way that the Republicans lost blacks in the 1960's.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=IsSDqbot-EI

[Scrim 115]

Contemptuous Canucks Chuck Aerial Ale At Oriental Oriole

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...r-can-1.3791786

 

Reason: Hatred of Skin Color!

[FCP Bob 1,321]

https://guccifer2.wo...ton-foundation/

 

they've gone from hacking documents to faking them and disinformation now. Do you believe everything that the Russian intelligence agencies puts out because guccifer is the Russian government.

 

http://heavy.com/new...vladimir-putin/

 

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/299236-alleged-guccifer-20-hack-of-clinton-foundation-raises-suspicions

[Scrim 115]

I'm not so sure they're faked and this is a disinformation campaign, although that is always possible.

 

That seems to be their deniability strategy, but its entirely possible that the documents are true and they're denying it for obvious reasons.

 

It would be interesting if things ever got to the forensic level.

[Dubey 1,035]

Contemptuous Canucks Chuck Aerial Ale At Oriental Oriole

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...r-can-1.3791786

 

Reason: Hatred of Skin Color!

 

yes, there are idiots and racists everywhere, even in Canada.

[brvheart 1,758]

This is weird, because I've been told by liberals that voter fraud doesn't exist.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

This is weird, because I've been told by liberals that voter fraud doesn't exist.

 

Did you read the full article ?

 

Indiana has a voter ID law so hard to see how fraudulent registrations will vote in person.

 

So it appears 1 of 3 things is happening here.

 

1. There is an organized effort to create false registrations

 

2. Simple errors in some of the information for registrations are being considered fraud.

 

3. There is no fraud and it's politically motivated by the Republicans in control of the State Sec of State office to try and supress minority voters.

[brvheart 1,758]

Indiana has a voter ID law so hard to see how fraudulent registrations will vote in person.

 

Thank goodness for the citizens of Indiana. Tough luck in other states.

 

 

 

3. There is no fraud and it's politically motivated by the Republicans in control of the State Sec of State office to try and supress minority voters.

 

Classic. Everyone has to have an ID to get a drivers license, get food stamps, be on welfare, etc, but a $6 state ID is oppression.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

[/font][/color]

 

Classic. Everyone has to have an ID to get a drivers license, get food stamps, be on welfare, etc, but a $6 state ID is oppression.

 

not sure where you're gettting this from my comment.

 

Republican officials in many states have openly admitted that the chief motivation for voter ID laws is to decrease the numbers who will vote Democrat. Not hard to think that the motivation for shutting down an organization with an investigation who are registering people who will mostly vote Democrat is a political one.

[scuudagouch 15]

as BRV already stated, you need an ID do anything in this country including opening a bank account, getting electric and everything else include have a job but it is to much to ask to have one to vote...nobody even gives a crap about the reason - the truth is it is insane to not require one for many many reasons MOST of them good valid. if it forces anyone a hardship they must not consider it very important.

[Balloon guy 158]

It should be hard to vote. Make people who care have a voice, and the stupid stay home.

 

But then the Democrats would lose every election.

[Balloon guy 158]

Maybe we can spot them a couple million votes each election?

[FCP Bob 1,321]

Contemptuous Canucks Chuck Aerial Ale At Oriental Oriole

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...r-can-1.3791786

 

Reason: Hatred of Skin Color!

 

Toronto Police ‏@TorontoPolice 60m60 minutes ago

1005 18:08 Man Wanted For Beer-Can-Tossing Incident, Photograph Released http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/36107 …

 

He has serial killer written all over him. Good thing in Canada our deadly weapons contain Molson's and not hollow points.

 

[FCP Bob 1,321]

I don't want to disappoint Scram

 

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_bPhkXOCq57dbfql

 

Scott Lincicome ‏@scottlincicome Oct 4

Scott Lincicome Retweeted Catherine Rampell

There is literally no economic issue on the planet on which more economists - from the left, right & center - agree.

 

 

Catherine RampellVerified account

‏@crampell

of panel of elite economists, 0% say that imposing higher tariffs to encourage more domestic production would be a good idea

 

[Scrim 115]

Toronto Police ‏@TorontoPolice 60m60 minutes ago

1005 18:08 Man Wanted For Beer-Can-Tossing Incident, Photograph Released http://www.torontopo...sreleases/36107 …

 

He has serial killer written all over him. Good thing in Canada our deadly weapons contain Molson's and not hollow points.

 

 

Yes, because a man who throws a beer at a baseball game is but access-to-a-firearm away from shooting up a nightclub.

 

Between this guy and Dubey coming out in favor of scientific racism, the great white north seems awfully hospitable for despicable racial hatred.

 

I hear the RCMP have convened a task force to hunt down the beer thrower to prove that Canada is not as racist as it very obviously seems.

[Scrim 115]

I don't want to disappoint Scram

 

http://www.igmchicag...bPhkXOCq57dbfql

 

Scott Lincicome ‏@scottlincicome Oct 4

Scott Lincicome Retweeted Catherine Rampell

There is literally no economic issue on the planet on which more economists - from the left, right & center - agree.

 

 

Catherine RampellVerified account

‏@crampell

of panel of elite economists, 0% say that imposing higher tariffs to encourage more domestic production would be a good idea

 

 

Who were the people being polled?

 

"Elite experts" means absolute dogshit if there was an idealogical selection bias.

That, right there, is actually discussed in great detail in "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics", how slanted polls are one of the first perverted statistical tools to be deployed by people trying to present a certain viewpoint by creating an unspoken selection bias among the participants.

 

With that being said, I am very strongly opposed to most tariffs in general, but totally favor them in selective cases where they make sense.

 

That is one of those issues where a credibly negative aspect is used to shout down credibly positive aspects, with that all-too-common demand that everything is an ideological suicide pact and everything must be all or nothing, at once.

 

There is a 0.0% chance that tariffs aren't applied tactically. They won't be 'general tariffs'. They will be selective tariffs (including putative tariffs, when warranted)

[FCP Bob 1,321]

Who were the people being polled?

 

"Elite experts" means absolute dogshit if there was an idealogical selection bias.

That, right there, is actually discussed in great detail in "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics", how slanted polls are one of the first perverted statistical tools to be deployed by people trying to present a certain viewpoint by creating an unspoken selection bias among the participants.

 

With that being said, I am very strongly opposed to most tariffs in general, but totally favor them in selective cases where they make sense.

 

That is one of those issues where a credibly negative aspect is used to shout down credibly positive aspects, with that all-too-common demand that everything is an ideological suicide pact and everything must be all or nothing, at once.

 

There is a 0.0% chance that tariffs aren't applied tactically. They won't be 'general tariffs'. They will be selective tariffs (including putative tariffs, when warranted)

 

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.

 

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

 

Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".

 

The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.

 

Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.

 

The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

[Balloon guy 158]

Sounds like a bunch of wankers.

 

[Scrim 115]

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.

 

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

 

Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".

 

The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.

 

Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.

 

The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

 

Nobody doubted there would be adequate resume bullet points for the participants but to determine whether or not there was a selection bias, we would have to further researcher their stated opinions on certain issues relevant to the polling questions prior to the poll being taken and determine whether or not they were cherry-picked to facilitate a predictable outcome.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

 

Nobody doubted there would be adequate resume bullet points for the participants but to determine whether or not there was a selection bias, we would have to further researcher their stated opinions on certain issues relevant to the polling questions prior to the poll being taken and determine whether or not they were cherry-picked to facilitate a predictable outcome.

 

 

They're polled on many issues regularly. They are respected economists from the left, right and center who were selected to represent many different viewpoints.

 

The reason they basically all agree about tariffs harming the country that imposes them is because among professional economists there is no dispute. It's like asking Virologists if you should vaccinate your child against whooping cough. You shouldn't get your vaccination advise from Jenny Mccarthy and you shouldn't base your trade policy on what a machinist from Gary Indiana feels he knows about the issue.

[Balloon guy 158]

Because economists are always right!!

 

Their science is hard, hard like Algore's abs hard.

 

Harder than defending Hillary's record hard.

 

Harder than leaving your daughter in the same room as Bill Clinton hard.

 

Harder than pretending the Clinton Foundation isn't a slush fund hard.

 

Economics!

 

It's hard!

[Balloon guy 158]

Do any of these hard science professors of awesomeness explain why we have trade deals where other countries put tariff's on our stuff, while we don't put them on theirs?

 

Why would we do a deal where the other country is hurting their economy by doing these deals?

 

Why are we so mean to hurt them like this? Are we just vindictive?

 

 

Can't Trump try to redo these with a more level playing field like, :"We will not do any deal with you that you won't do with us"?

This would prevent us from destroying the economy of Japan by our horrible trade deal that allows them to trade war us, while getting free trade to us?

 

 

I mean think about the children.

[brvheart 1,758]

Republican officials in many states have openly admitted that the chief motivation for voter ID laws is to decrease the numbers who will vote Democrat.

 

I would like the sources on this please, from the actual people saying it... something like video would be excellent. Don't bother linking Mother Jones or Huffington or an article whose "source" is "sources said". Also make sure there are many different states represented in your sources.

[Balloon guy 158]

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday denied reports that she once suggested taking out WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with a drone strike.

"I don't know anything about what [WikiLeaks] is talking about, and I don't recall any joke," the Democratic nominee told reporters Tuesday. "It would have been a joke if it had been said, but I don't recall that."

WikiLeaks tweeted a screen grab Sunday evening from a report alleging that Clinton once asked in 2010 during a State Department briefing, "Can't we just drone this guy?" She supposedly asked this when she served as secretary of state.

 

So what is the real story?

 

Did Hillary think it was okay to joke about bombing a London embassy to kill someone she doesn't like?

 

Or did her brain damage prevent her from remembering the 'joke'?

 

 

We can't give this woman access to the nuclear button, she might bomb an ally as a joke then forget she did it.