Lurker > Corrik7

Peace___Frog posted...

Mine in PA was... 6

My ballot in PA was 4 and one of the 4 was unopposed. Lol.

Turnout is massively down here from normal elections. The ballot system has changed to paper ballots and without the ability to vote straight party line. I could see others votes if I wanted to. Also, my house rep ran unopposed, which is weird to me, because I think he only won by like 37 votes last time he was on the ballot.

Suprak_the_Stud posted...

I can certainly host if needed as I have a set up I just need to write up the flavor for!

Do people want a game now or is there someone else we're waiting on?

we want you bud

red_sox_777 posted...

It's not open and shut at all, or if it is it's in the other direction. Residence is about the intent of the person. For example, college students may have a residence at their parents' home because that is where they return during the Summer, on breaks, etc. and that is where they subjectively view as their home and to which they intend to return.

She has a place in the district. She declares that it is her home. Unless she's confessed that it isn't or something, I don't see how a jury could find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Her residence does not have to be the place where she spends the most time - for example, DJT transferred his residence from New York to Florida at a time when he actually spent the most time in DC. Dick Cheney transferred his residence from Texas to Wyoming so he would be eligible to be VP under Bush. It was a subjective thing.

Wait so I'm confused. Does Oz live in PA or not?

Polling and news factions of outlets rarely work in tandem.

Foxnews has one of the better regarded polling outfits and they tend to skew slightly left in polls. While their news is a bit... different.

Can suprak host the fuck 2021 mafia before 2022 is over. Kthx.

Then give me cobra kai.

Stop giving me shops.

red_sox_777 posted...

That sounds amazing. To clarify, you mean the independent would allow the pointless investigations and political nonsense to go on, or they would stop them?

He would stop all investigations.

red_sox_777 posted...

My ideal outcome would be for Democrats to hold the House and Republicans to take the Senate. Sadly that looks like the least likely outcome.

Ideally the house would be deadlocked with an independent who refuses to break the deadlock to stop pointless investigations and political nonsense. The senate would be republican.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The Hill isnt a liberal website, Corrik.

Funny enough, people across the spectrum assume that it is, but the numbers dont shake that way:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill-media-bias

The Hill famously posted MANY editorials by Trump staffers and mouthpieces during his term.

A particular memory I have is of a friend sharing an article from Trumps press Secretary saying If the left wing Hill is saying this, you know Dems are in trouble lol.

Your source has it on the left moreso... and it is only weighted to the center by self described left. If you view CNN as not liberal, then using this source at all is just pointless for your own argument.

That said.

Republicans rated The Hill as Lean Left on average, while Democrats and Independents rated The Hill on the left side of Center.
A total of 924 people from across the political spectrum people who identified as Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right, or Right rated the bias of The Hill. The weighted average was -0.76, on a scale from -9 to 9. This is in the Center category, and close to Lean Left. The middle 50% of responses lied between -3.13 (Left) and -0.02 (Center).

The middle deviations of responses landed all on the left side of the spectrum.

Our February 2020 Blind Bias Survey showed that participants who rated themselves as Lean Right and Right thought The Hill's content is Lean Left, but not by much. Those who self-identified as being in the Center perceived The Hill's content as being on the border line of Center and Lean Left. Those who describe themselves as Left see The Hill's content as Center; those who describe themselves as Lean Left see the content as between Lean Left and Center.

If you view yourself as left, you view it as center. If you lean left, are center, or are right... you see it as going towards lean left.

LightningStrikes posted...

I was thinking this before seeing that:

Why are polls in the US so bad? Like, polls miss occasionally in other countries (famous example being the UK in 2015 though even that was only 3%) but 95% of the time theyre accurate. In the US it seems like everybody expects an error its just a matter of which way it goes.

The great irony is that the example everybody cites is 2016, where polls were actually bang on at a national level and only off in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania at a state level which didnt actually matter as Trump still would have won either way. People were just unreasonably confident relative to the data.

That is btw the Hill a leading liberal websites take on one singular poll.

Now that said, all through this midterm I have said it is odd how little polling we have. A lot of those polls we see are ones we would have derided as Republican biased polls in the past. As Silver does point out, these Republican biased polls in the Trafalgar and the Rasmussen and InsiderAdvantage did end up being the most accurate in 2020. So, there is that. But, where is the other polls? It's hard to argue the polls are being flooded by Republican polls when very little polls from anyone else are coming out.

Yougov and surveyusa polls are unreliable because I believe they are just online surveys.

The Sienna appears to be a slanted outlier (clearly about 4 points to the favor of the democrat in almost every poll across the board). We are barely getting consistent polling though for the Senate races that you would think you would get though. Is it flooding or lack of polling?

We know that Georgia will go to a runoff. So the polling there doesn't really matter. But, Nevada and PA do matter.

My predictions are.

Republicans take Nevada and PA senate seats. Georgia goes to runoff where it doesn't matter.

Everyone else holds. NH, Arizona, etc stay Dem. Wisconsin, Ohio etc Repub.

Marlins
Chargers
Redskins

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3722172-democrats-close-enthusiasm-gap-in-new-survey/

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/

I just want to point out from 1933 to 1995

62 years.

Republicans had full control of congress for just 4 years.

Democrats had full control for 52 years.

And it was split just 6 years.

20 of those 52 years had a republican president. Which means 32 years democrats had all of congress of and the presidency.

Of the 4 years Republicans had full control of congress, just 2 had a republican president.

Its kind of amazing that democrats controlled stuff for so long and squandered so much.

We would need more data to completely assess the situation, but it's dangerous to draw a conclusion from a Twitter stat snippet.

Profit margins will always be up with low supply items. This is a very basic supply demand curve you learn in basic economics 101.

I feel like people like to spout numbers with zero understanding of what it means.

For example, you have the wage growth charts vs productivity over time. It is explained by automation. Productivity rose but wages stagnated. Because automation increased productivity by streamlining processes. A worker can now do less work and produce more.

Espeon posted...

Who gives a shit about adjustments? The fact that corporations are making billions while average people are being gouged for basic necessities is a BAD thing. And it doesnt help that so much of the current inflation problem is caused by corporate profiteering.

Corporate profits are getting ready to plunge to losses due to fed increases. That is hardly going to help the average person. If the average person had even more money, supplies would be limited even more causing even more inflation. The shutdowns caused problems we haven't seen in a long time.

masterplum posted...

There is a lot of assumption there Corrik.

We are one normal polling error away from 46 D seats. Or 54 D seats. I would hold gloating until after the election

If democrats lose big its going to simply going to be this is the highest inflation weve had in 40 years. Nothing exciting.

I'm not gloating. It is literally astronomical how much they have fallen apart in polling in the past month.

What happened to the democrats...

PA is looking to go red now in the Senate as Fetterman spirals to a slow death.

Nevada is looking to go red.

Georgia is looking to go red.

New Hampshire is now in play to go red.

Arizona may not be as safe as once expected.

55-45 Red chances in senate on 538.

RCP has Republicans holding leads in NH, PA, Nevada, and GA. (Slight).

Generic Ballot is 3-4% in Republicans favor and that is never in their favor.

I know the usual midterm slaughter happens to presidents normally but this is a stunning turnaround from just a month ago.

Student debt relief ended up backfiring politically. Most affected were already dems. Those who already paid them off or didn't get relief were riled up against the dems, and Republicans affected stand ready to take the relief all the while acting like it's bullshit and they didn't want the relief.

If this trend continues for Republicans at this rate til the polls Tuesday, we might get the red tide.

That said, what is up with the complete lack of polls this election. Silver looks like he pivoted to not weight polls so strongly for dems like he did in previous elections so I suspect his forecasts will be more on the money now.

I told you all in 2016 the republican senator candidate I believe his name was Murphy or whatever would win despite being down like 3-4% in the polls. I told you Trump would take PA. I told you Biden would take PA in 2020. Based on what I am hearing and seeing. Fetterman is dead in the water after the debate. I expect Oz will take PA. I have heard almost not a peep about Oz and Fetterman before the debate. After the debate, I have seen so much about fettermans debate performance and support for Oz firing up all over social media and on the ground. While I expect things to sway red where I am, Westmoreland County is an indicator area for how elections will go along with Erie and a couple of other areas. A fetterman win would be an extreme surprise.

Where is the link

htaeD posted...

You under-estimate how far people are willing to go to troll

You will still verify. There will just be in theory a lot less to have to verify.

Oh sweet!

Sup

MoogleKupo141 posted...

they already dont verify illegitimate accounts, the money doesnt help with that. Im pretty sure the verification process involves actually verifying the person is who they say they are. Theyre not giving check marks to imposters.

I said the cost detracts from people trying to get verified that aren't legitimate. Meaning less manpower to verify in theory.

Isn't the point to monetize the platform, that many who have blue checks marks make money on the platform in the forms of marketing and such, and that it stops the process of trying to get authorized if not a legitimate account due to the monetary cost behind it now.

Johnbobb posted...

went to see Terrifier 2 tonight

everyone in this topic AND the horror topic lied to me except Corrik

I got you, bud.

I laughed so hard when she said to her brother, where did you find that book we have been looking for that for years. Then later on he says something to his mother about the book and she is like you and that God damn book again. Lol. I was like uhhhh I thought the book had been missing.

The supernatural stuff may in retrospect work after 3/3.5 is done, but right now nothing makes sense.

At all.

Five Guys has been way up in price even before the pandemic

guffguy89 posted...

I think it's partially the location that they chose to set up shop that's going to hurt them possibly. As I mentioned, they are blocks away from a gourmet burger restaurant (that offers bottomless fries with all their meals by the way), but they are also a few blocks away from a very popular jumbo burger/frozen custard shop. Politicians that visit always stop there. It's one of those kind of places. The burgers there are already on the expensive side. I think they charge $8.50, which is still a couple dollars cheaper than Five Guys.

I don't know. Maybe I'll try out Five Guys by myself once just to see if the food is worth it...I guess we just experienced sticker shock when we were not expecting it, and it took us by surprise.

To be fair red robin sucks and five guys is way better

Wait til you see the price of a hotdog..

It's amazing what people will pay to have a restaurant cook their burger less.

Jakyl25 posted...

You know literally everything any politician says to the public is pandering, right?

Fair enough.

Inviso posted...

I mean, I would argue that Biden "pandering" in this particular instance is actually an attempt to quell racial division, since black people have been historically oppressed throughout our nation's history, either via slavery, or Jim Crow and Segregation, or just the statistically overwhelming crime statistics against them. Given that there's literally no way to redress this oppression through legislation, since one party who controls half of the electorate either wants to outright deny it exists, or just doesn't want to spend money to fix the problem...using one of the few things the executive branch can unilaterally do (nominating, not confirming since that's still on the Senate) in order to try and heal a divide that has existed for centuries...I mean, what more do you want in terms of avoiding racial division?

Also, when it comes to pandering...you've told us in the last topic that you plan on voting for Dr. Oz. Like...he's LITERALLY a celebrity from outside Pennsylvania, shipped into Pennsylvania to try and win a Senate seat by appealing to the lowest common denominator, who might be swayed by the smart man from TV the same way they bought into Trump. Never mind that he's an out-of-touch rich guy. That's also very much pandering.

Oz is out of touch as can be. His commercial about some crazy ass food I never heard of was very telling.

Inviso posted...

Because Fox News sets the tone for not just GOP talking points, but apparently left-wing media talking points as well (based on that graph of crime reporting from a few weeks ago). So what they do and say does have a major impact on how politics are viewed, and the thing I find questionable is this whole "I'm only against it because it's pandering" argument. It's easy to say that, but my argument is that if Biden said nothing and just nominated KBJ, Fox News would run the same attack ads: it's woke pandering. And they'd repeat this again and again and again, and it would become a staple GOP talking point, because at the end of the day, unless the Dems replaced straight, white man Stephen Breyer with a straight, white man nominee, the nomination would ALWAYS wind up being called pandering and a woke attack on American norms or something. Fox News sets the tone, and the rest of the party follows suit.

I just don't buy that, if the GOP picked up the ball and started running with it, calling KBJ's nomination pandering non-stop, that you, Corrik, would not have had that thought invade your brain like an earworm. I think regardless of whether Biden said anything about nominating a black woman or not, due to sheer osmosis, it would get into your head that the only reason he picked KBJ was to pander to black voters or something, and you'd be just as upset and believe that to be his reason. KBJ would then no longer be the "best choice for the job", because she would have only been chosen to pander.

I want to make it very clear: I am not calling you a racist. However, I believe some people much higher on the totem pole are. Racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. And to those people, any threat to white dominance over our culture and government is dangerous to them, so they use their positions of power, either in government, or in the "news" media to push a narrative that picking a woman over a man is pandering. Picking a black person over a white person is pandering. And you repeat that over and over again, and it burrows into your head. And then, even though you yourself aren't racist, you've reached the exact conclusions the racists want you to reach about KBJ...namely that she's not as deserving as someone else who was passed over for being a white guy.

I am usually the one that is leading the charge for being annoyed by Democrat pandering with the people I know. And at work they literally call me "the democrat" now because you know not being full aboard for Trump isn't republican enough now.

The thing is, I have for years been talking about the pandering and the media's goal to rouse racial division for views, especially when it comes to election years.

I don't think it came from Tucker or whatever, but if it did, I probably would fully agree with him on that subject.

swordz9 posted...

Only almost seems unwatchable? Fox News is full on psychiatric ward and has been for a while

Why do you watch it?

red_sox_777 posted...

Why do you care so much about what Tucker and Fox News and the rest of them say? Corrik's vote is worth literally infinite times theirs since he is a swing vote and they are going to vote GOP no matter what.

Tucker used to have decent segments I would see people post on Facebook, but I have seen a ton and ton and ton of crazy crap from him lately. Foxnews almost seems unwatchable between him and Hannity from what I can tell anymore. I don't really watch much TV tho. Bill Maher used to be awesome tho.

Inviso posted...

Let me ask you this: let's imagine Biden kept his mouth shut, and just randomly called a press conference to announce that KBJ was his pick to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Do you genuinely believe that the majority of people upset about Biden's pandering would miraculously be cool with the announcement, and it's only his words that upset them? Because maybe I'm just cynical, but I find it hard to believe that Tucker "White Replacement Theory" Carlson and the rest of the Fox News opinion pundits wouldn't have their talking points in order within twenty-four hours, to call out KBJ as an example of Democrats pushing a "woke agenda" and replacing a white man with a black woman, and effectively saying all the same things they already said now. Her skill and legitimacy would be called into question regardless. So as shameless as the pandering might be, why not at least openly own it and get credit from SOME people?

I know the only issue I have is with the pandering. So at least one person? I literally can't stand pandering. I wouldn't wanna be pandered to either. I feel like eventually some have to find it insulting to them too. They pander pander pander pander pander for their votes but rarely do anything actually to help. It's weird. It's like all a show for votes.

Jakyl25 posted...

It absolutely is laughable pandering

But why does it bother you THAT much

I thought we were discussing pandering to race in regards to position and placement.

Jakyl25 posted...

Did it bother you when Trump declared he would replace RBG with a woman

Uh yeah? I want the 9 best justices. It reeked of pandering to the left to make them feel better about replacing a liberal with a conservative.

Inviso posted...

So, because Biden said he would replace Breyer with a black woman, that inherently means he was going to go out of his way to find someone inferior and undeserving?

This is absolutely the problem. If Biden said, I will select the best Justice regardless of race or gender and chose her, it would be a great accomplishment. The fact he limited and made it seem like she was only the best when applying filters, he cheapened the accomplishment and also called the legitimacy into question.

He could have absolutely not said that and just chose her. But he needed a "please pat me on the back while I pander" points. Thats what irks me so bad about democrats. Identity politics. Democrats pander for votes instead of treating everyone the same. It was what annoyed me about Biden when he came out and made the January 6th or whatever about race. It didn't need to to there except to fuel division and pander. It made me immediately have a bad taste in my mouth. I absolutely hate when democrats do that crap.

Every single person is equal to me, and you are judged solely by the person you are. Nothing else.

Leafeon13N posted...

We know why Corrik had the beliefs he does and like most right wingers its none of the reasons he would admit publicly. Everything else is clearly just an excuse.

I haven't heard many people go the "agree with me or you are racist route in a long time" must have been because I didn't talk on board 8 lately.

This is literally bidens VP and SC choice all over again (Har har bidens SC choice is literally an example of this). You don't go saying I want the best African American females. You want the best applicants regardless of sex and race that you feel will be an embodiment of your institution. Their sex nor race shouldn't matter and frankly should not even be known in deciding. There is going to be some subjectiveness on close applicants. There should be, a Har Har we need 30 more Latinos over here so sucks to be a few of these Asians or Caucasians or African Americans who did way way better.

Then if you are seeing discrepancies in applications, you start tackling the problems at the roots. Why are certain demographics doing better. Help those schools, those areas.

masterplum posted...

I think these two statements are exclusive to each other. If a school decides that having a large female population has merit because nobody wants to attend an all male school but males have higher scores is that sex discrimination?

I am really interested in what the ruling is going to be on this, because it's a tricky subject

Is your goal truly education if you want only one sex to learn there? And yes merit being not male is discrimination.

masterplum posted...

Affirmative action is a weird one

On one hand, I agree it should be merit based.

On the other hand, what the hell even is merit?

Universities give scholarships for athletics, so athletics counts as merit, so what doesn't count as merit? In a way I think AA is trying to say that different life experiences is merit.

I feel like you could probably structure an admission program that achieves what you want it to achieve without specifically using race as a factor, which is probably what will happen (And honestly would be a good thing because races aren't homogenous)

Universities get to determine what their merit is. If their merit is clearly racist, they should be shamed for it and sued for discrimination.

Espeon posted...

I said equivalent merit. Not oh, this inferior minority should be given better treatment than a superior white person.

I don't get what you are getting at then.

Inviso posted...

And you understand that, without affirmative action, the merit of white college applicants will be weighted more positively than the equivalent merit of non-white college applicants, right?

Then they are more deserving. If it's 100% african-americans, they are more deserving.

Peace___Frog posted...

How do you feel about legacy admissions, corrik?

Nope. Merit only. Shouldn't even know who the applicants are when deciding. They should be decided blind based on GPA, attendance, conduct, testing scores, essays, and extra curricular.

Zero reason to know sex, age, race, etc. Federally protected discrimination statuses should not even be known.

Striking down affirmative action is gonna be one of the best things the Supreme Court has done. It's a travesty of a program.

Terrifier 2 is so trash lol

Crescent-Moon posted...

Was no one thinking this through?

They do this every year apparently

So Bernie is asserting that the Republicans are gonna win a veto proof majority or that Biden is on board?

I mean

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/?cid=rrpromo

LordoftheMorons posted...

The last two were bipartisan and tariffs raise prices for consumers. I was actually going to list free trade as the one example I could think of as a conservative idea that is good for the average American, but the GOP's abandoned it under Trump!

Just want to toss an example to you. You can answer however you want, but stay focused on my actual question and don't stray.

USA Companies X: Compete to produce an item and sell it in their own country, while providing a moderately middle class wage to their employees, strict environmental standards, and occupational standards for health and safety.

Generic Country A Companies Y: Produce an item to sell at home and abroad in cooperation with each other and subsidized by the government to be able to sell at lower than normal price. Workers are provided minimal wages, employee health standards are not a priority, and environmental standards are much lower. The item can be produced, shipped overseas to any customer, and still also undercut the item being produced by companies in the USA Companies own country. If demand isn't there, they can continue to produce due to being subsidized and not having to incur the financial reasons not to.

Generic Country B Companies Z: Produce an item to sell at home and abroad in cooperation with each other and lacks any environmental stands, worker protections, and uses non-liveable wages and/or child labor in order to produce their item for much lower. It can be produced, shipped overseas to any customer, and still also undercut the item produced by companies in the USA companies own country.

Do you think tariffs would be a good idea in this scenario? If so, to which party? Why?

Do you possibly let the USA companies go under? What if the item is considering potentially vital? If they go under, likely the other countries then could raise prices due to lessening of supply. Does that matter?

Do you look at the humanitarian aspect of it? How about the environment? Would you support lowering the wages in the USA companies to better compete?

It's kind of a tough question.