Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-25-2017 , 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
Anyone else remember that time skalansky was on espn and said he woulda won a nobel prize if he tried?
This made me chuckle for a long damn time. I want to some day meet David.

http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/show...0&fpart=3&vc=1
04-25-2017 , 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
I wonder how many times scotus seats were available on day 1.

Not counting 1776, I'd have to go with zero.
04-25-2017 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoder
We already have a way to measure which candidate is supported by more incompetents and dumbos, just look at their campaign decision makers. Do they know where the key swing states are and how to swing them their way? It is clear that Hillary was surrounded by incompetents. And considering the job the candidates were running for was to run the country, showing that they can put together a staff to run an effective campaign is a relevant measurement.
And Trump was surrounded by criminals.
04-25-2017 , 06:36 PM
The entirety of the Trump staff thought they were losing on election night until results started to come in from Florida. That's why they were working more on the cable tv channel they had to abandon then actual govt policy.
04-25-2017 , 06:38 PM
I am an old man with horrible hair who brags about petty accomplishments that nobody really gives a **** about. I'm woefully insecure about who I am and I use the internet as a means to reassure myself that I am a valuable human being. Through delusions of grandeur, I brag about what I could be but what I will never become due to inadequacies that I am unwilling to acknowledge.

Am I:

A. Donald Trump
B. David Sklansky
04-25-2017 , 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoder
We already have a way to measure which candidate is supported by more incompetents and dumbos, just look at their campaign decision makers. Do they know where the key swing states are and how to swing them their way? It is clear that Hillary was surrounded by incompetents. And considering the job the candidates were running for was to run the country, showing that they can put together a staff to run an effective campaign is a relevant measurement.

No we are observing complete incompetence of the administration in real time, of course Trumpkins are still talking about the campaign though.
04-25-2017 , 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoder
We already have a way to measure which candidate is supported by more incompetents and dumbos, just look at their campaign decision makers. Do they know where the key swing states are and how to swing them their way? It is clear that Hillary was surrounded by incompetents. And considering the job the candidates were running for was to run the country, showing that they can put together a staff to run an effective campaign is a relevant measurement.
C'mon. She spent plenty of time in PA. As far as MI and WI, based on history and polling, would you have spent significant time there instead of in FL and NC?
04-25-2017 , 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
I am an old man with horrible hair who brags about petty accomplishments that nobody really gives a **** about. I'm woefully insecure about who I am and I use the internet as a means to reassure myself that I am a valuable human being. Through delusions of grandeur, I brag about what I could be but what I will never become due to inadequacies that I am unwilling to acknowledge.

Am I:

A. Donald Trump
B. David Sklansky
lol and they both feel threatened by rachel maddow
04-25-2017 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiggymike
No we are observing complete incompetence of the administration in real time, of course Trumpkins are still talking about the campaign though.
Why not? Their leader is still campaigning.
04-25-2017 , 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert

https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/856933469452201986
Because pricing of new homes and old homes are tied together in the market place this will create inflation for all homes. Maybe this is good maybe this is really bad. But it certainly triggers an extremely complex set of factors.
04-25-2017 , 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Not counting 1776, I'd have to go with zero.
1789*

Good gotcha for Trump: when was Constitution ratified?
04-25-2017 , 07:19 PM
Anyone ever consider that Donald Trump is Donald Trump's biggest mark?

"Sure Donnie, you'd make a great president. You should run."
04-25-2017 , 07:23 PM
The thing I find most inexplicable is that Trump never pivoted. He could be at 60% approval if he pivoted hard post election. Instead he let the Kool aid drinkers just run hog wild. And that was already the JV team. The bench is empty with 500 positions left to fill. Can't wait for asst. sec. Kid Rock.
04-25-2017 , 07:38 PM
Pivoting requires thought, he prefers to just say whatever the **** pops into his head.
04-25-2017 , 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
1789*

Good gotcha for Trump: when was Constitution ratified?
i'm pretty sure a better gotcha would be: what is the constitution?

I'm not even 75% sure he could answer: what is the united states of america?
04-25-2017 , 07:45 PM
Someone on CNN should tell Trump, "Hey Don, if you hadn't run the USFL into the ground, Tom Brady might have been your QB for the last 15 years. Instead, you are in a job you hate with the lowest popularity rating of any President. That includes Barack Obama whom you thought was from Kenya. How do you feel about that?"
04-25-2017 , 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Anyone ever consider that Donald Trump is Donald Trump's biggest mark?

"Sure Donnie, you'd make a great president. You should run."
On the original Apprentice the contestants were civilians and part of the prize was a "job" with the Trump organization that paid them out 100k or 250k for one year.

I'm pretty sure trump wanted a similar "job" when he won the Whitehouse reality show.
04-25-2017 , 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
So here is one last idea for using a test to help alleviate these problems. Instead of one that disqualifies the dumb, the gullible or the uneducated, what about one that identifies the opposite? Say the top 5% or so. Then do something like this:

Count everyone's vote equally at first. But note how the top 5 percenters break. But that second number only becomes relevant in close elections. Perhaps 52-48 types. When that happens check to see how the top 5 percenters voted. If they broke significantly the other way, say 55-45 or more, the other guy wins or perhaps alternatively there is a do over a month later.

Something along these lines would be more acceptable to the man in the street than a test that disqualifies incompetants for two reasons.

1. There is much less stigma on not making the top 5% than being disqualified to vote.

2. The smarties cannot nullify an election that isn't close.

Such a scheme would at least sometimes prevent results that I believe are more and more likely to occur if nothing is done to prevent experts in voter manipulation to take over.
This post is what it sounds like when DS thinks he is doing "math".

This is what actual mathematicians sound like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
Cool. I do mostly algebraic geometry, but some stuff in my work has analogues in K-Theory I believe. I also studied a very simple sounding problem called the Horn problem, maybe you know it, (given three hermitian matrices A, B, C, when do A and B have conjugates that sum to C?), which has a symplectic geometric approach involving moment maps.
Which is really why we should stop conflating DS and math people. They aren't the same. And to buy into DS's "rank people by teh smartz" worldview for a moment, I'm not even saying one has more of teh smartz than the other, it's just they really aren't the same.
04-25-2017 , 07:49 PM
Trump doesn't pivot in part because his base will turn on him but his opponents will still prefer a Democrat.

"You can't stump the Trump" with gotcha questions because he'll just weasel word his way out of it. Ask him who'll win in the playoffs and he'll say there are several good teams, maybe segue to a self-aggrandizing story tangentially involving one of them. Ask him when the Constitution was ratified and he'll say something like "a couple hundred years ago, I'm not sure the year, what am I a historian?" and no one's opinion of him will change
04-25-2017 , 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb
C'mon. She spent plenty of time in PA. As far as MI and WI, based on history and polling, would you have spent significant time there instead of in FL and NC?
PA might as well be two or three different states, depending on where you are. Did she spend all her time in the Philly metro area? It was the rural vote that killed her here.
04-25-2017 , 07:55 PM
Trump totally would have ran as a Dem had Rmoney won in 2009 instead of Obama.

Last edited by RV Life; 04-25-2017 at 07:57 PM. Reason: 2008 obviously but 1/20/09
04-25-2017 , 07:55 PM
ATC: you sound like a late grad student, is that right? Which university? That's pretty cool. I have heard of the horn problem in this context, yes I think we share quite a bit, I've studied a lot of hamiltonian systems (or more precisely quasi-hamiltonian systems which have moment maps that takes values in the Lie group instead).
04-25-2017 , 08:00 PM
http://time.com/4755069/ivanka-trump...g-iii-apparel/

Quote:
A new report by a watchdog group found the Chinese knitting factory used by the company that makes clothing for Ivanka Trump's brand has poor conditions and pay, with workers putting in up to 60 hours a week for wages of about $62 weekly.
Quote:
Inspectors spent two days touring the facility in October, ultimately determining that workers experienced high turnover, pay at or below China's minimum wage, and excessive work hours. They also were not receiving legally mandated pension, medical, or housing benefits, and received only five days of paid leave per year, with some exceptions. Average urban manufacturing jobs paid workers about twice as much as the jobs in which Trump fashion has been produced.
04-25-2017 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
The thing I find most inexplicable is that Trump never pivoted. He could be at 60% approval if he pivoted hard post election. Instead he let the Kool aid drinkers just run hog wild. And that was already the JV team. The bench is empty with 500 positions left to fill. Can't wait for asst. sec. Kid Rock.
He actually did pivot a bit. He went back on his views on NATO. He stated that he no longer views Russians as his friends. Plus he stopped calling China a currency manipulator. It's just that these things were positions that weren't quite as important to Trump supporters as things like oppressing brown people and hating Obama.

I'm not sure if pivoting harder would result in an approval rating that high. Sure there'd be some bump. The NeverTrumpers would probably jump on board. But other than that, everybody's view on him is pretty much set in stone. Just as he could eat a baby at a rally and not lose supporters, he could cure cancer and not gain any liberal supporters either. I really can't think of a more polarizing figure in American politics. It's either unadulterated hate or extreme adoration when it come to Trump.
04-25-2017 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
Trump totally would have ran as a Dem had Rmoney won in 2009 instead of Obama.
it was his job to destabilize domestic politics, he had to do it or his fsb handlers would release the hotel videotape of him accidentally killing that russian prostitute. he definitely would have made a major effort to promote his "the USA election is rigged" shtick that RT and sputnik has been advancing since russia's elections were exposed.

      
m