[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;50260630]wait... so who's still left on the republican side?[/QUOTE]
Trump. Noone would have thought it would come to this.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50252036][i]WE WANT TRUMP
WE WANT TRUMP[/i]
*Airhorn*[/QUOTE]
Lol you guys are fucked.
[editline]5th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;50258758]The public sucks. Fuck hope.[/QUOTE]
After Clinton,George Bush and Obama I'm surprised you have any hope.
ted cruz decided to ted lose
[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;50260630]wait... so who's still left on the republican side?[/QUOTE]
This is basically the state of the Republican party right now:
[t]http://i67.tinypic.com/f1i3o5.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50260714]This is basically the state of the Republican party right now:
[t]http://i67.tinypic.com/f1i3o5.png[/t][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50260644]Trump. Noone would have thought it would come to this.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://static.politico.com/0d/32/1a3d67e94ab0949d400876dee0ed/gop-debate-gty.jpg[/img]
from this to just one dude? I mean yeah I know people drop out the race and there's usually only a handful of guys left at the end but holy fuck
[QUOTE=coldroll5;50260666]Lol you guys are fucked.
[editline]5th May 2016[/editline]
After Clinton,George Bush and Obama I'm surprised you have any hope.[/QUOTE]
You forgot daddy bush, regan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson, etc.
Kennedy would have been great but of course we have to blow the man's head off. All hail the military industrial complex and it's endless wars against an imaginary boogie man. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;50260749][img]http://static.politico.com/0d/32/1a3d67e94ab0949d400876dee0ed/gop-debate-gty.jpg[/img]
from this to just one dude? I mean yeah I know people drop out the race and there's usually only a handful of guys left at the end but holy fuck[/QUOTE]
hell yeah Trump kick their ass and Hillary's gonna be next
WHOOOOOOOOOoo--!!
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50254392]If the secret is only being kept by 10 people, it is somewhat feasible.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project[/url]
[QUOTE]A 1945 Life article estimated that before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings "probably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved." The magazine wrote that the more than 100,000 others employed with the project "worked like moles in the dark". Warned that disclosing the project's secrets was punishable by 10 years in prison or a $10,000 ($131,000 today[1]) fine, they saw enormous quantities of raw materials enter factories with nothing coming out, and monitored "dials and switches while behind thick concrete walls mysterious reactions took place" without knowing the purpose of their jobs[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50254392]Why are you so sure Obama was born in the US?[/QUOTE]
You're running on a faulty guilty-until-proven-innocent argument here. The burden of proof is on you to prove he wasn't born in America, not on the President to prove that he was.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50254392]Why are you so sure Obama was born in the US?[/QUOTE]
Ooh, is this a chance to use bayesian statistics? I think it is!
To start with, we need some priors. My personal experience is that 100% of people claiming to be American citizens by birth are, in fact and confirmed by documentation, American citizens by birth, out of a set of eleven (various relatives of mine). That sets my priors at 1-2^-12 (starting from a default probability of 50%, as customary), or 0.999755859. Note that this would drop quickly upon finding someone with a false certificate - the power of another true one is far less than the power of a first false one.
That's already pretty solid - 99.97% is nothing to sneeze at - but that's just priors, what I would assume before looking at the evidence.
Obama has released his birth certificate. I don't know what the actual rates are for falsified birth certificates, but out of the three I've seen, all were correct, so my priors on "is a birth certificate not falsified" is 1-2^-4, or 93.75%. So that adds to the power of the claim, increasing to 99.9969%
Also supporting the claim are two birth notices published in Hawaiian newspapers. Those have proven (to a high degree of certainty) to have been published during the time of his birth, and lacking any apparent motive [I]at that time[/I] to falsely claim place of birth, it's a safe assumption that they are accurate descriptions. That's another two pieces of evidence in support, bringing us to 99.99924%
The evidence against is fairly weak. There is a Kenyan birth certificate that has been proven to be a forgery - thus, no effect on probability (a fake certificate is equally likely whether he was born in America or not).
The apparently-widespread birther movement does count as evidence against, but only weakly (it is impossible to ever observe all possible evidence, so this is a proxy measure for "evidence I have not seen but others have and have been convinced by"). Two other presidents have been subject to birther movements, Andrew Jackson and Chester Arthur, both of whom are currently believed to have been citizens by birth without controversy. So the probability of seeing a birther movement for a born-in-America president is 2/43 (I'll assume the other 41 were truly eligible), and I'll just assume the probability for seeing a birther movement for an ineligible president is 1.
Final probability (assuming I've not fucked the math up somewhere, been a while since I actually crunched probabilities like this): 99.99916% odds Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii; 0.00084% chance he was born elsewhere.
In other words: I would take a gamble on Obama being proven an imposter only if you offered me a return of 120,000:1 or higher.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;50253643]All her political career has been in ambition for presidency, right? So what else would she possibly have to gain if she's already president?
Why, as President, would she deceive people for her personal benefit? Once you reach the top of the political pyramid there's nowhere else to climb, and therefore no one to backstab. She's been laughing in her sleeve to serve her purpose of becoming president, at which point she will no longer need to laugh in her sleeve because such a goal has been met. By then, her goals are party and public-based, not self-based.[/QUOTE]
Really late but holy hell is this post funny.
For the first 4 years, re-election. Not to mention support and funding from corporations during her term and after. Clinton stands to gain a LOT if she makes it to the white house. She'd likely play it safe and status quo for the most part, but would inevitably throw in a few curve balls with the aim of boosting her backers discretely. Stuff like tax breaks and generous deals. She literally had a secret meeting with her corporate backers where the press where restricted and had static played at them to drown out her speech.
It's unbelievable that you would honestly think someone who has only ever looked after themselves would pull a complete 180 behaviour wise because they 'won'. The presidency is a means to an end, as everything is to 'flexible' career politicians.
The presidency isn't some final prize.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50265076]Really late but holy hell is this post funny.
For the first 4 years, re-election. Not to mention support and funding from corporations during her term and after. Clinton stands to gain a LOT if she makes it to the white house. She'd likely play it safe and status quo for the most part, but would inevitably throw in a few curve balls with the aim of boosting her backers discretely. Stuff like tax breaks and generous deals. She literally had a secret meeting with her corporate backers where the press where restricted and had static played at them to drown out her speech.
It's unbelievable that you would honestly think someone who has only ever looked after themselves would pull a complete 180 behaviour wise because they 'won'. The presidency is a means to an end, as everything is to 'flexible' career politicians.
The presidency isn't some final prize.[/QUOTE]
First of all, your incendiary language is a bit patronizing. I'm not pretending to be an expert about this stuff, so there's no need to laugh at me about it.
Second, I see your point, and I agree with you about some of this. I think we're talking about slightly different things here, though.
I'm not a fan of Hillary, but it seems to me that she works with corporations so she can further her political career. Most presidents retire after their term and do charity work for the rest of their lives, and they don't really stay active in politics anymore, so I don't see why she'd have to stay on good terms with those corporations for too long. Maybe I just don't know enough about the money controlling politics.
You're right that she's still going to work with corporations behind the scenes, but what else does she personally have to gain from it aside from money and a little political cooperation? Hasn't she been ultimately seeking power this whole time?
I also suspect she'd become a lot more careful around private businesses as president because she's already under some heavy public scrutiny regarding corruption.
Forgive my poorly-written post earlier, I'm pretty sure I wrote it around 2 AM after a long night of college essays. I'm not even sure I understand either of these arguments, so if I'm clearly missing something, don't bother making a whole rebuttal since I'm not really devoted to this position I'm presenting. I just felt a need to elaborate a little more after you got all snarky about it. I just think there's reason to believe she'll leave some of that behind once she gets what she's clearly been working towards for a long time
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;50262977]You forgot daddy bush, regan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson, etc.
Kennedy would have been great but of course we have to blow the man's head off. All hail the military industrial complex and it's endless wars against an imaginary boogie man. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/QUOTE]
A touch over the top don't you think?
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;50265230]First of all, your incendiary language is a bit patronizing. I'm not pretending to be an expert about this stuff, so there's no need to laugh at me about it.
Second, I see your point, and I agree with you about some of this. I think we're talking about slightly different things here, though.
I'm not a fan of Hillary, but it seems to me that she works with corporations so she can further her political career. Most presidents retire after their term and do charity work for the rest of their lives, and they don't really stay active in politics anymore, so I don't see why she'd have to stay on good terms with those corporations for too long. Maybe I just don't know enough about the money controlling politics.
You're right that she's still going to work with corporations behind the scenes, but what else does she personally have to gain from it aside from money and a little political cooperation? Hasn't she been ultimately seeking power this whole time?
I also suspect she'd become a lot more careful around private businesses as president because she's already under some heavy public scrutiny regarding corruption.
Forgive my poorly-written post earlier, I'm pretty sure I wrote it around 2 AM after a long night of college essays. I'm not even sure I understand either of these arguments, so if I'm clearly missing something, don't bother making a whole rebuttal since I'm not really devoted to this position I'm presenting. I just felt a need to elaborate a little more after you got all snarky about it. I just think there's reason to believe she'll leave some of that behind once she gets what she's clearly been working towards for a long time[/QUOTE]
Sorry that was patronising, I was quite tired when I wrote it and obviously could have worded it all better. I also get a bit mad at people who are pro-clinton when the evidence speaks against her so strongly. I realise now that you were just wondering though so that was rude of me.
People like Clinton seem to be entirely about making money despite the cost. You would think 'you have the presidency now, one of the few platforms for making actual social change, you should use it', but the rich elite don't seem to care about anything but furthering their dynasties. Real change is dangerous because it always means going against the current thinking of the time, so even if she could enhance the Clinton legacy by championing rights issues or reforming tax systems to close loopholes and increasing the public welfare - she won't. The most she'll do is a few feel good measures that look good on paper so she can be seen as progressive (although there is footage of her claiming to be progressive and moderate).
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50265620]A touch over the top don't you think?[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree, it really is outrageous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
