Icewolf

Sending and storing classified information in your home is a crime. Deleting the words "Classified" off the documents does not make the information unclassified. Instructing your staff to delete the classified marks off the information, and send it to your private server at your home, is a crime. No one is above the law. Soon, very soon. I do recall back in 2003, you guys made a really big deal out of an ex-CIA operative that was exposed as an ex-CIA operative. How selective Democrats are with that outrage. You've been saying something is about to happen for going on 8 months now. When is something actually going to happen? There is a 7 point healthcare plan that consists of "deregulate and abolish obamacare." Which to me reads like a person who doesn't have a plan, as it doesn't propose a single positive action to solve healthcare costs in America (which are stupidly high and frankly an embarrassment to you guys).

The Republican Party's problems go far far deeper than Trump. 1. Their candidates are all crap. I know they got up on stage together and praised each others strengths but when you get down to it, they are all crap. Soundbite Rubio, the Pyramids are grain silos Carson, I don't need swing voters Cruz, I am the very definition of toxic branding Bush, bridgegate Christie and some other people. Trump is not doing well because he is a good candidate, but because there is no electable, ideologically sound and competent opposition. 2. The media are not accurately reporting the race. Trump is super popular! Trump is running away with it! Trump is crushing all opponents! False. I remember this time period in the 2012 race when the media were reporting it as still wide open at a time when Romney had a higher voter share than Trump has to date, had actually won majorities in states and was considered acceptable by a far larger proportion of the party. Trump has yet to win a majority in a single state. When asked if they would be satisfied with Trump as a nominee, over half of Republican voters in exit polls say no. If the media are going to paint him as a run away winner no matter what the facts say, its hard for another person to get traction. 3. Tied into point 1, only Rubio has over 50% of exit poll voters saying that they will be satisfied with him as a candidate, which is 53%. Trump has less than 50%. No candidate has won a majority in any state. Bernie Sanders, a 74 year old self-declared socialist is more popular than any Republican candidate, if you compare vote shares in their respective primaries. If your leading candidate can barely get over 1/3rd of the vote, and no more than half your party can even tolerate any candidate, it does not say much for party unity or strength. I think a contested convention is inevitable at this point. There is no unifying candidate in the party, and there is no good candidate in the party. Trump will be blocked because the Republican party does not want him to be their face. He will run 3rd party. He won't do very well because the only group he is less popular with than the Republican party is your average American voter. But he will do well enough to draw away Republican voters deprive the Republican Party of oxygen. And Clinton will smile all the way to the White house.

TBH, I'm only 3 episodes in so I have a ways to go, but haven't been real impressed after the first 3. I mean the backstabbing going on between Claire and Francis is some good stuff, but TBH the season so far seems to be Claire focused and her basically outsmarting Francis. It seems less on Francis, and more on Claire and what shes doing or what she wants. But I'm only 3 episodes in so things can get better. Hopefully wont be disappointed. It picks up some pace and some interesting things are about to happen.

Season 4 is a lot better as it brings back the plotting and dark arts of political fighting.

So season 4 of House of Cards hit netflix yesterday. And to my eternal shame (or glory) I watched the last episode around midnight. Thoughts, opinions, judgements? I think its not as good as seasons 1 and 2, but was better than season 3. I especially liked that gamesmanship and conspiracy returned more to it than existed in season 3.

I know those feels a bit - I can sit down and spend like 6 hours at a time playing EU 4. In my MSCI classes we referred to these as "Black Holes." I wish you the absolute best bro. Follow your dreams and if you enjoy something throw yourself into it full-force! I like that a lot. Thanks for sharing Brother. Congratulations on getting married; it sounds like you really have a great future ahead of you!!!What language are you learning? French

Most states are still proportional at this point I believe. Which is why Cruz got so many delegates despite only winning three states. The answer is no Trump didn't. Which ties into my point that despite the media obsession the guy really isn't that popular. The states voting yesterday were a mix of proportional and what would be better described as "winner-take-most." More extensive details on the allotment calculations are here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/super-tuesday-preview-republican-presidential-election-2016/ If you go to the Wikipedia article for the primary now, you can see the aggregate vote totals for each candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 At the moment they are: TRUMP: 3,320,055 (34.25%) CRUZ: 2,710,180 (27.96%) RUBIO: 2,105,918 (21.72%) You're right that Trump has not run away with the vote total - in aggregate he isn't even up to 35%. However, in the upcoming states, which are increasingly winner-take-most, or winner-take-all, a plurality is all that is needed. Cruz and Rubio do not lead in most such states, which is why the mathematics are running against them. For example, in Florida, yes, Trump is only at ~40% in the polls, but that is comfortably ahead of Rubio's 21% and Cruz's 16%. It is noteworthy that Trump is actually getting less of the Republican vote than Romney got in Super Tuesday 2012.

Most states are still proportional at this point I believe. Which is why Cruz got so many delegates despite only winning three states. The answer is no Trump didn't. Which ties into my point that despite the media obsession the guy really isn't that popular.

Did Trump win a majority (rather than plurality) in any state?

On a more serious note, I am guessing they are both too young to have yet reached the quiet acceptance that nothing ever really changes, nothing is ever truly the end of the world. EDIT: On the numbers thing, there are 13 states holding votes, 12 of which are holding democrat votes and 11 of which are holding Republican votes.

My first instinct is a mental illness. It just doesn't sit right with me that you can be in charge of a child for 18 months and then kill them.

Good for you, you have exactly the right attitude to life. There is a cracked article that I feel really sums up something very important, despite being on a comedy site. http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/ It has a very important introductory paragraph "For the rest of you, I want you to try something: Name five impressive things about yourself. Write them down or just shout them out loud to the room. But here's the catch -- you're not allowed to list anything you are (i.e., I'm a nice guy, I'm honest), but instead can only list things that you do (i.e., I just won a national chess tournament, I make the best chili in Massachusetts). If you found that difficult, well, this is for you, and you are going to fucking hate hearing it. My only defense is that this is what I wish somebody had said to me around 1995 or so." Now every person I know who is happy can do this. Every person I know who complains about their lot in life can't. Its not the be all and end all, and certainly its not some great secret to life, but it is something that is quite important to remember. For me, right now; 1. I'm getting married in November to a fantastic woman 2. I'm buying my first house, with completion being on Thursday 3. I have a very good job, where I am the youngest person on my paygrade in the office 4. I am making good progress in learning a new language (my first 2nd language) 5. I just started hitting the streets for my first involvement in political campaigning 6. My ariel gymnastics routine is really starting to develop.

Or, given that he is the least liked candidate in the Republican field, has no practical policy ideas, has alienated vast numbers of people with his anti-women, xenophobic, anti-disabled crap, and consistently polls he worst out of all Republican candidates, he will not only hand the Presidency to Clinton, but the Senate and House of Representatives to the Democrats as well. We'll see which vision is correct.

Sanders had a blip in New Hampshire. That was apparent before New Hampshire, and is more apparent now. The media effectively promoted a 2 horse race because races promote viewing numbers. The media coverage of elections is less about honest reporting of the facts and more like a promoter for a boxing match. No promoter talks of "come and see this guy lose, result certain, roll up ladies and gentleman, result certain, only one thing can happen!" On the other hand, you are correct that Trump is a gift to the Democrats as democrats and unaffiliated voters hate him more than any other Republican.

If someone told me that based on the climate of one US state in January they could predict the weather on a November day to within 1 degree centigrade I wouldn't believe them either. Especially if they had in the past been out by six or seven centigrade.

1. Anybody who claims they can predict something like an election with 97% certainty 8 months before the event is a liar. There are far too many variables. Sorry, there is no two ways about that. 2. The model has never predicted anything. It is a model that explains past election results, but a model can't really be considered as being useful until it has demonstrated that it works by predicting the future. With only 25 examples, its fairly easy to find correlations in data, but that doesn't mean that they are meaningful or the model can be used to make predictions. Thank you Ice. I was concerned about this because he's a Professor of Political Science at Stony Brook State University in New York. Anyone who claims they can predict the outcome of an election 8 months before the event, by just using data models from the past, has got to be an obvious liar. I'm so pleased to hear that you now agree that using data models from the past to predict the weather 100 years from now is an even bigger lie. I mean really... when will these Scientists from Liberalville Universities realize we are not stupid enough to believe every hypothesis they come up with? There are several key difference. 1) Climate scientists have far far more data. 2) Inputs into the worlds climate are easier to predict than inputs into general elections. Carbon emmissions are not as fickle as media output, and are not generally reduced substantially by scandals. Whereas a political candidate can fall flat very easily. 3) Climate scientists already have made predictions and had results with which to check their models against. 4) Accuracy of long term predictions is less important for a meaningful climate projection. Temperatures will rise is about the same kind of statement as "people will vote Republican." Whereas to predict an election is like predicting "temparatures will rise by EXACTLY 2.143 degrees centigrade. 5) Climate Science uses the entire picture. This person is predicting an entire election off a handful of elections that do not represent the demographics of the nation. EDIT: Turns out I was wrong and the model has been used before. Why, only as recently as 2008 it predicted a virtually tied race between Obama and McCain. Which was clearly not the case.

1. Anybody who claims they can predict something like an election with 97% certainty 8 months before the event is a liar. There are far too many variables. Sorry, there is no two ways about that. 2. The model has never predicted anything. It is a model that explains past election results, but a model can't really be considered as being useful until it has demonstrated that it works by predicting the future. With only 25 examples, its fairly easy to find correlations in data, but that doesn't mean that they are meaningful or the model can be used to make predictions.

I would like to return to the point that Trump is not fiscally conservative. He wants to follow reagonomics-the real reagonomics, not the type that people like to pretend he followed, but the reality of massive, massive, deficit spending. Its one of the interesting things about this election from an outsider that whilst Obama has been attached constantly and been in a constant battle with the US congress over spending, and constantly attacked for spending too much, the Republican field in the Presidential election somehow makes the democrats look like fiscal hawks.

Here is the full quote. "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this is man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt" (Apologies for the highlighting, not sure how to undo it). So he very clearly does not say that Trump is not a Christian...unless you are declaring that Trump is a man who only wants to build walls. This is a media created controversy and nothing more. I mean you wouldn't be surprised that some might consider a man who consistently bears false witness, mocks the disabled and brags about how rich he is (Camels, eyes of needles anyone) might have his Christian Credentials questioned by some, but the Pope has not done that.

He really didn't. He made a specifically said that he was not saying how to vote and then made a generic statement that Christians should think about building bridges and not just walls. The media then proceeded to go nuts because the reality doesn't get the viewers in.

And job creation leading to tax income increases is not automatic. In the UK our government has actually managed to undermine the revenue with job creation because they are all low quality jobs that pay too little for tax, but still have all the associated costs in childcare and tax credit rights. Economic growth hasn't fixed the need to top up wages with welfare, so the next method is a 50% minimum wage rise over 5 years. We shall see if this roll of the dice actually reduces the welfare bill.

. Easy ways are always the best ways right? . "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken To apply this slightly further, lets look at Trumps proposals. He is going to cut taxes, increase government spending on the military and reduce the deficit. Now that implies that there is a magic deficit reduction button that is super easy to use, and frees up vast amounts of cash for expensive programmes. So either every single President has been an utter idiot, or they have not been particularly keen on ensuring popularity for their party.

Or else the constant promoting of violence will turn off huge swathes of the electorate and you had better get used to President Clinton. The polls are not in your favour on this one. Trump is not popular outside of his fanbase.

The BBC are also getting far too government cosy in the run up to Charter renewal. Cameron proposes to reshuffle his cabinet to get rid of people who dislike his EU negotiation, "Unity Reshuffle." Rumour that Corbyn proposes a reshuffle, "Corbyn out for revenge."

Depends if you define a court that comes to a 4-4 ruling on every issue, and therefore serves just to confirm lower court decisions as "working."