Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
What do you mean? About impeachment?
Click to expand...

No, about Trump himself. Your prediction about his behavior is based on a model of what you think he's like, is it not? If the prediction is wrong, that suggests the model is wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, about Trump himself. Your prediction about his behavior is based on a model of what you think he's like, is it not? If the prediction is wrong, that suggests the model is wrong.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it means at all. Something can happen 99 times out of 100 but that 1 time it doesn't doesn't mean you should throw away the entire model. Science!
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Just Security are reporting that they have seen unredacted White House emails

It's clear that the redactions were not made for reasons of national security, but in order to cover arses, and that the Office of Management and Budget lied in official correspondence to the General Accountability Office that they had not been warned by the Pentagon that withholding the budget would see them unable to provide all the aid that had been authorised, when they had actually been warned repeatedly for months of exactly that.
Click to expand...
What a surprise. Makes me even more interested in reacted parts of Mueller report.
 
plague311 said:
No, that's not what it means at all. Something can happen 99 times out of 100 but that 1 time it doesn't doesn't mean you should throw away the entire model. Science!
Click to expand...

Suppose that if your model is correct, there's still a 1% chance your prediction will be wrong. If your prediction is wrong, should you still believe in your model? No, you shouldn't. You should suspect that your model is probably wrong, because it's more likely that your model is wrong than you've hit the statistical anomaly. Yes, it's possible your model could still be right, but you're making a bad bet by sticking to it under those circumstances.

Note also that concluding your model is wrong doesn't obligate you to default to any specific alternative model, so it's not like you even need to give up hating Trump.
 
JoeMorgue said:
A large part of Trump mentality right now is a childish, trolling glee at seeing just how much he can get away with.

I hope it bites him in the ass hard.
Click to expand...
But he hasn’t got away with it. He is simply unable to stop himself because that’s the way he has always done things and he never got in trouble before. Some white knight always bailed him out.

Oh, hello Vladimir! Fancy seeing you hanging around Donny!
 
Segnosaur said:
I'd love to see them forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate right before (like, literally minutes/hours before) Trump's State of the Union speech, just to see how much of a melt-down there is.

Seriously though, it will all depend on what Moscow Mitch does. If he decides "Yes, we will hold an actual trial with actual witnesses" then they would need to proceed without delay (because otherwise they would be criticized for "playing politics"). But as long as the Turtle keeps bragging about coordinating with the white house, then the Democrats can delay while maintaining the high ground.
Click to expand...
No, she should publicly threaten to send the articles just before the SOTU. Shake him up but not let him off the hook.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. If you think slaves aren't people at all, then you don't think slaves are 3/5ths of a person. 0 =/= 3/5
Click to expand...

Yes Zig. This post nails it. People don't get this clause and how it came about. The irony is Northern states didn't want slaves to be counted at all.

It's not like they didn't want African Americans to be counted, they didn't want slaves to be counted. It was Southern slave owning states that were demanding them to be fully counted just like we do with other non-voting people. (women and children) The 3/5ths was a compromise as was the US Senate and the EC.

Adding insult to injury after the Civil war people of color were then counted equally even though everything imaginable was done to prevent them from voting.
 
alfaniner said:
I think it would work better the other way around -- a congressional wonk dressed as a stripper.
Click to expand...

Which congressional wonk did you have in mind, to sacrifice to Trump's misogyny for your own amusement?

More seriously: You know Trump is going to show up to the SOTU and throw Pelosi's failure to go to trial right back in the Democrat's faces, right?
 
theprestige said:
Which congressional wonk did you have in mind, to sacrifice to Trump's misogyny for your own amusement?

More seriously: You know Trump is going to show up to the SOTU and throw Pelosi's failure to go to trial right back in the Democrat's faces, right?
Click to expand...

Who cares?
 
theprestige said:
Anyone who's hoping that impeaching Trump will galvanize the voting public in November.

Also that congressional wonk who's supposed to dress up as stripper for Trump. I bet she cares.
Click to expand...

Thats a popular contemporary pragmatic/machiavellian approach to these things. Political decisions (like impeachment) are primarily strategic plays and not rooted in principle or a national vision. And such is the way democracy dies and a kleptocracy grows.
 
theprestige said:
Anyone who's hoping that impeaching Trump will galvanize the voting public in November.

Also that congressional wonk who's supposed to dress up as stripper for Trump. I bet she cares.
Click to expand...

Nobody watches the SOTU any more.
 
acbytesla said:
Nobody watches the SOTU any more.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't watch it now. I can't watch Trump for more that a minute or two before wanting to put my fist through the TV. Besides, he'll probably make it the State of Trump Address or How Trump Has Made America Great Again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom