mwguy 3d ago • 11%
Because retaliation on behalf of domestic businesses is something Europe freaking invented.
mwguy 3d ago • 100%
No worries. I thought it was fun.
mwguy 3d ago • 100%
We've already paid for it though. That's why we built Yucca Mountain.
mwguy 3d ago • 83%
Also nuclear fusion has essentially zero waste.
mwguy 3d ago • 100%
mwguy 3d ago • 40%
Pay no attention to the Hezbollah operated tunnel system near the compounds lookout tower.
mwguy 3d ago • 7%
Is the EU just going to bet that none of its companies ever have to do business outside of the EU?
mwguy 3d ago • 100%
Legend.
news.sophos.com
www.natesilver.net
AI Summary thing I've been expirimenting with: --- This article is a nuanced exploration of how internal polls and campaign dynamics are reported by journalists, particularly on social media platforms like Twitter. The author proposes a categorization system for levels of access to information: 1. Level 3.1: Journalists reporting on internal polls or campaign mood without citing numbers directly. 2. Level 3.2: Well-connected elites (e.g., politicians, strategists, donors) sharing internal polls or campaign sources within the media. 3. Level 3.3: Random individuals on Twitter claiming to have seen internal polls. The article highlights the potential for misinformation and spin at each level: • Level 3.1: Journalists may repeat spin or uncritically pass along information from campaign sources, as seen in the Axios report mentioned in the article. • Level 3.2: Well-connected elites might share unverified or biased information, often without realizing it's not accurate or might be used to manipulate public opinion. The author emphasizes that: 1. Data beats vibes: Even if internal polls are not publicly available, data-driven reporting can provide a more objective picture of the campaign. 2. Journalists should be cautious: Reporters should verify information, especially when it comes from well-connected elites or unverified sources. 3. The feedback loop: As misinformation spreads through social media and elite networks, it can create a self-reinforcing narrative that becomes detached from reality. The article also highlights the importance of critical thinking and skepticism in evaluating internal polls and campaign dynamics. By distinguishing between Level 3.1 reporting (which might be informative) and Levels 3.2 and 3.3 (where misinformation or spin is more likely to occur), readers can better navigate the complexities of electoral politics and media coverage.
mwguy 1w ago • 25%
Nixon was explicitly pardoned to avoid prosecution for his crimes.
Congress didn't have to stop the impeachment of Nixon. They chose too because Nixon agreed to never run for office again.
If we want that to change we need an Amendment that established an Independent, non-partisan Prosecutor whose job it is to prosecute Presidents and former Presidents.
mwguy 1w ago • 33%
The whole point is to prevent dangerous individuals from using these loopholes to buy guns.
Dangerous individuals largely aren't using this loophole to buy guns. That's part of the problem.
The only gun control that might have a chance at stopping gun crime is a total civilian ban and that requires an Amendment.
mwguy 1w ago • 33%
Impeachment is a political process with the ultimate result being removal from office.
And potentially the removal of that person's ability to ever run for office again.
Impeachment and removal from office does not mean they would go to jail, it is not a criminal trial.
Yes, that's the design. Because it's not an "impartial" process but a political one. And because only 40 or so people have been given that protection, it makes perfect sense.
That's an 8th grade understanding of the concept where you never learned anything after.
The 8th grade understanding is the correct one. As confirmed by SCOTUS.
Remember the DOJ reports to the President. A process where you're either suppose to investigate your boss or investigate your Boss's political allies/opponents would be way to open for abuse.
Trump can be prosecuted for what he did before the Presidency (as is being done in New York) and for what he has and will do after the Presidency (should he run back J6 part deuce). But for crimes committed while President impeachment is counterbalance.
mwguy 1w ago • 20%
That is the correct interpretation of the law. We could punish the Seal Team and their chain if command for following the order. But punishment of Biden himself would require him to be impeached.
And frankly that's how it should be.
Obama killed that 16 year old in Yemen. He isn't liable for that. Bush spied on Millions of Americans without warrants he isn't liable for that. You can argue they should be; but that's not how our system is designed.
mwguy 1w ago • 20%
Because every 8th grade civics course says the same thing. You punish Presidents with impeachment.
mwguy 1w ago • 100%
It should be. But it's not. Dems needed to follow the Nixon playbook and have a long drawn out impeachment hearing. They punted on that and let him walk.
Trump already beat the charges.
mwguy 1w ago • 100%
Yes. As much as I hate it. It's not that big of a story. Either you know and realize Trump tried to commit a coup or you've bought the lie.
Until Dems start running on, "He he committed a coup" which they gave up on when they punted on his impeachment; it's not a story.
The conflict makes it a story.
mwguy 1w ago • 33%
According to Pew and APMRL, 58% of Americans want stricter gun laws, and nearly everyone—86%—supports universal background checks. 86%. Not exactly a fringe opinion, is it?
They hyper majority of gun sales have background checks involved in them. Universal background checks would either ban the private sale of guns (which SCOTUS would likely overturn) or open up the background check system to private citizens (which will almost certainly be abused from a computer security perspective & will lead to people realizing just how poor the system is).
The point isn't that 80% don't support gun control, it's that each thing on the wishlist isn't widely popular. And even if the actions would lead to a landslide, Americans wouldn't be happy about it.
mwguy 1w ago • 100%
Especially when you look at the US's largest metropolitan areas like New York and Chicago that's really the only knob that hasn't been turned. It's defacto illegal to own a gun in those areas for the common man or woman.
mwguy 1w ago • 100%
No polling says that. There's like 50-60% support for "more strict" gun control.
70% opposition for a Handgun ban. And only 20% support for an outright repeal to the 2nd Amendment.
So even if the above gathers an 80% supermajority it won't be able to maintain it if it does thing that are widely unsupported.
mariadb.org
Uuid4's Baby!
www.natesilver.net
Title is hyperbole. Essentially the answer is maybe but most likely not. Has a discussion about potential poll error in the context of precision vs. accuracy. Notes that the model assumes accuracy but not precision.
www.natesilver.net
AI Generated Summary (I've been expirimentign with it): * Kamala Harris had a tough day in the forecast despite gains in national polls. * She leads by 3.8 points nationally but has a 47.3% chance of winning the Electoral College. * The model adjusts for convention bounce, assuming her polls are inflated. * Harris’s numbers may improve if she maintains her current standing. * A concern is the lack of polls showing her ahead in Pennsylvania, a key state. * Recent polls show Pennsylvania as a tie or slightly favoring Trump. * Harris has a 17% chance of winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College. * RFK’s dropout and endorsement of Trump may impact her in Rust Belt states. * Tim Walz has had a strong rollout as Harris’s VP, but there’s speculation about Josh Shapiro.
