US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Confused Doggo, Wingnut, Halo Cipher and 75 others
Some Dumb Faggot said:
It's funny how all the Doomers and News Outlets won't talk about polls like these.
View attachment 6261083
Vs the polls that ask 200-2000 people.
Click to expand...

Polls that aren't randomly sampled are useless. If you made a poll here do you think the results would be at all meaningful? What about the same poll but run on a different site like Democratic Underground?

Also, for reasons that require a little understanding of statistics/mathematics, you don't get much better results from a poll of 10k or even 100k as opposed to just 1,000 responses, at least not relative to the additional cost. The poll with a sample size of 1,000 will have a margin of error of about 3%. Going up to 10k only reduces it to around 1%. For most states the results are more lopsided than that 3% so it doesn't matter if you could do better.

The part that really gets most people is that for really large populations, the margin of error doesn't change much even though the sample size becomes a much smaller fraction of the population. That 1,000 people sample size is just as good for a population of 50,000, as it is for 50 million or even 500 million at giving you a 3% margin of error. There are probably some good YouTube explanations if you're really curious about it.

My Earnest Opinions said:
I think it's going to be Josh Shapiro for the VP pick. A sexual assault allegation against someone who isn't him, but a subordinate where the claim got settled, isn't enough baggage. The Ellen Greenberg 'suicide' is shady but apparently that case is being reopened, so the manlet is covering his tracks.

addendum: I don't think it's going to make a meaningful difference whether she picks Josh Shapiro or Peter Buttigieg or Mark Kelly
Click to expand...

Is there any reason that Shapiro would want to tie himself to this disaster in the making? He's not up for reelection until 2026 and he won by a solid enough margin in 2022 that there's little reason for him to think he wouldn't win again, though I have almost no knowledge of Pennsylvania politics to know whether that's a valid assumption on my part. I don't believe that he has to resign his current office so losing technically doesn't hurt him, but I would think it would hurt his reelection chances. On the other hand, it's easy to see why Buttigieg wouldn't have a problem running since he's already on a sinking ship and his future political prospects are pretty grim.

The only reason Shapiro makes sense is that he maybe helps them win Pennsylvania, but that's not a given as Harris is still the presidential candidate and every bit as unlikeable regardless of who her VP pick is. The other issue is that Shapiro probably pisses off a lot of the muzzies and the shitheads protesting on college campuses that the Democrats like to exploit for cheap labor during the election season and might cost them a state like Michigan.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: make_it_so, DackFeynman, Gutless and 7 others
Bush years were interesting. Unprecedented tech boom was still churning but a few years later would be cooled off. Two wars. Recession of 03. Matrix sequels that sucked. Every TV on the planet that was wide screen had 4:3 content stretched. Social media hadn't infested normies yet. 90s shit was cheap and no one wanted it (cheap usable cars, retro video games were dirt cheap). Everyone dressed terribly.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Randall Fragg, Nguyen Van Phuoc, ZMOT and 16 others
Mr. Smiley Good Fella said:
Bold of you to assume the climate czar would have a proper burial in the ground. That would release carbon emissions and may taint the environment. No, John Kerry will be incinerated.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? That botoxed-up schnitzel kike will probably get buried in an air conditioned vault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, spiritofamermaid, Mr. Smiley Good Fella and 1 other person
Wendell Stamps DoL said:
There's no such thing as a respected Indian sorority.
Click to expand...
"Hey Punjab Durka Durka members, this is your RA Hapreet Currypoontang. I hate repeating myself, but this is yet another reminder that we do have a working toilet in this dorm. Again, there is no need for defecating on the floors. Now who's up for a game of Indian Scrabble with all the consonants removed?"
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS, Wendell Stamps DoL and 4 others
Irene and 22 others said:
Polls that aren't randomly sampled are useless. If you made a poll here do you think the results would be at all meaningful? What about the same poll but run on a different site like Democratic Underground?
Click to expand...
The polls they use still oversample Democrats, and Twitter is significantly bipartisan(Some one argue it's still more left leaning). So I don't really see how that would make that poll less valid in anyway.
Irene and 22 others said:
Also, for reasons that require a little understanding of statistics/mathematics, you don't get much better results from a poll of 10k or even 100k as opposed to just 1,000 responses, at least not relative to the additional cost. The poll with a sample size of 1,000 will have a margin of error of about 3%. Going up to 10k only reduces it to around 1%. For most states the results are more lopsided than that 3% so it doesn't matter if you could do better.
Click to expand...
A sample size of 200 people is still going to have a huge margin of error compared to a sample size of 350k regardless of diminishing returns.

Granted the Twitter poll is probably wacky too, my point is that most polls are bullshit(remember Hilary?) and we'll only really know when the election happens, so people shouldn't be demoralized by polls when they are just propaganda tools.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Basil Julep and FrancineCansMcGee
Shazam said:
Don't let the media gaslight you that Kamala's the most popular candidate ever. Left wing ideas are dying even among the hyper normies. (The post he quoted there has over 300k likes too.) The day of the great troon mass suiciding is coming. Seriously, imagine what these people are going to do when they realize this shit is no longer trendy and in a lot of cases completely irreversible.
View attachment 6260397
Click to expand...
I hate the world we live in, it's making me think "wow fair play jake Paul"
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: 0713, Nguyen Van Phuoc, Surprised Pikachu and 15 others
General Emílio Médici said:
What actually happened was that there was a invasion, but then they decided to stay around and partake in the complete farce of "nation building" trying to LARP out a post-WW2 style reconstruction when no one wanted it other than lobbyists who would get paid.
Click to expand...

This is a little bit revisionist. They did nation building to avoid killing people.

The GOP after 9/11 was split in two camps: the "rubble don't cause trouble" group who wanted to wipe everyone out, and the allegedly smarter people who talked about blowback, unintended consequences, etc. After 9/11 the country was calling for blood, and would have approved Bush carpet bombing every Arabic town you could find on a map. Many neo-cons, a decade out from their Cold War diplomacy experiences, thought this would backfire, and wanted a longer term solution. Bush's team was neo-cons, so they went the cautious route.

The term "neo-con" has come to mean a lot of things, eventually getting thrown around as a generic Bad Guy label almost as much as NAZI is thrown around today. But it's important to remember it was a very specific slice of the center-right: centrists or liberals who turned into foreign policy hawks after going through the Cold War. They saw the world in terms of unipolar vs bipolar, proxy wars and limited actions. And they treated their enemies as equals, ideological opposites with similar enough values that they could eventually come to terms with them.

Like it or hate it, Bush did put out a sweeping, transformational strategy for ending the long term cycle of Middle East turmoil and Islamic violence. He claimed if you gave repressive societies a taste of liberty, they would like it so much they'd shun the oppressive ideologies of despair and control. After all, it worked like that in East Germany and the USSR, surely the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wanted self rule and democracy too! Look at all these girls' schools we're building, and the women with purple inked fingers casting the first vote of their lifetime!

Obviously, it didn't work. The why is a much longer essay. My point is, Bush was trying nation building to avoid bombing these shithole countries into the ground. Yeah, contractors and lobbyists profited, but they always profit in war.

Remember how Bush was careful to call it the nonsensical "War on Terror", instead of a War on Islam? There were plenty of calls in the country to destroy Islam itself, and he wouldn't do it. I know how absurd it sounds to say the guy who started 2 wars chose the more peaceful option, but if you're facing a violent problem, the range of violent solutions can be extremely wide.

Everyone could conceive of a theoretical war where we rush in, bomb all the infrastructure, and leave within a year. But nobody at the time (or now) thought that would accomplish the stated goals of long-term security. It was either nation building or total annihilation, and TPTB didn't want to admit weakness on the international stage by jumping to that option.

The third option was doing nothing, admitting the US lacks the power and vitality to be the world's policeman. But nobody will say that out loud, even today. Trump only barely implies it, by trying to stay out of wars; he still blows hard about our invincible power and prestige on the world stage.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, make_it_so, Nguyen Van Phuoc and 18 others
General Emílio Médici said:
Both wars were not really sold as wars in a way most people understand it to be, but actually military operations. The expectation was to see a repeat of Desert Storm where the USA would show up, use massive firepower and shock and awe to deliver one huge blow, and be done. What actually happened was that there was a invasion, but then they decided to stay around and partake in the complete farce of "nation building" trying to LARP out a post-WW2 style reconstruction when no one wanted it other than lobbyists who would get paid.
Click to expand...
I do have to wonder the counterfactual of the US actually doing two Desert Storm operations during the War on Terror. The US probably would have been stronger since our veteran pool wouldn't have been all that fucked up by IEDs and trust in the institutions would be stronger too. BUT, it also would make it so that the US military think war is a six month affair where we hit the enemy hard, they fall down, and then we leave afterwards. We'd basically have the mindset of the US in ID4 and that would have led us to a proper war with Russia because we'd underestimate just how long and hard war actually gets.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Irrational Exuberance, spiritofamermaid, Nigger Cobson and 3 others
Drag-on Knight 91873 said:
I do have to wonder the counterfactual of the US actually doing two Desert Storm operations during the War on Terror. The US probably would have been stronger since our veteran pool wouldn't have been all that fucked up by IEDs and trust in the institutions would be stronger too. BUT, it also would make it so that the US military think war is a six month affair where we hit the enemy hard, they fall down, and then we leave afterwards. We'd basically have the mindset of the US in ID4 and that would have led us to a proper war with Russia because we'd underestimate just how long and hard war actually gets.
Click to expand...
If we were doing it that way we probably would have hit the rest of the "Axis of Evil" the same way. Who knows how that goes?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Drag-on Knight 91873 and Harvey Danger
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back