this should be a very easy election to win. her opponent is an imbecile. she doesn't need to pull off all these sophisticated triangulations. she just needs to run on a simple message about the economy.
the average american is not going to read this and think that america needs to unite against the russians. they're going to read this and think that she's so incompetent on national security that she can't even keep the russians out of her campaign communications.
this will backfire. dramatically. it's the only narrative that trump could possibly win on, and they're handing it to him.
did the russians steal the information? it's not unlikely. the russians are in and out of american servers all day long. so are the chinese. and, the amercians are in and out of russian and chinese servers all the time, too.
at any given moment, any of the major governments can hack into just about anything. that's the reality.
the fbi knows that....
voters don't know that.
so, blowing up the story like this has to be political in some way or another. it's really not actually a story.
the question is what the political purpose is.
i was talking a while back about the deep state trying to take her down on fears of her being compromised, herself. i guess i can't rule that out.
more likely to me is that this is clinton playing out her neo-con fantasies in building up an enemy to unite against. but, again that's just not what people are going to think.
they're just going to see the russians walking all over her: weak leadership, weak on national security....weak. weak. weak.
that ipsos "poll" may seem like things are back to normal, but it is also an "online poll" and consequently just as worthless as the one out of california the other day that had trump up by 7. ipsos has done a lot of polling in canada and is consistently nowhere near the outcome. they're literally worthless as prognosticators. i wouldn't even aggregate them. i wouldn't even report on them. i may even say i'd blacklist them from coverage.
i know that people will point to cell phones as a problem with polling, and a lot of the concerns they point to were at one point valid, but online "polling" is simply not a way forward. the best polling firms have actually found ways to poll cell phones and don't really see it as a serious barrier anymore.
the problem with the online polling is that there's no concept of randomness. the math underlying polling needs a random sample to make any sense. you can basically take anything with a "credibility interval" and toss it in the trash - the correct credibility interval for an online poll is not credible. ever. if it's close, it's by chance.
the rcp average is consequently just a polluted mess that should be avoided. i don't know if they've addressed this or written about it. but, they shouldn't be aggregating credible polling with this online propaganda-generation bullshit.
what that means is that the number of polls you should take seriously is a lot smaller than the media is going to throw at you. when the media throws a poll at you, immediately check to see if it's telephone polling or an "online panel" and respond accordingly.
the reason they report "credibility intervals" is that they can't measure error because the sample isn't random. it's just a pr tactic to make "online polling" look more scientific than it is.
it is not the same thing as a margin of error. don't be confused by this.
these people should write an open letter to the people of wisconsin, apologizing for their bad judgement.
Anarcho-Communist Cookbook
It's not a dodge if you genuinely dislike both of them.
jessica
that's right. if i tell you that they're both the same and it doesn't matter, you can disagree with me and tell me i'm wrong. but, don't tell me i'm dodging the question. it's just disingenuous. i really, honestly don't think that hillary is preferable to trump. i'm sorry. we can disagree. but that's how it is.
Dribrom Sunrock
I honestly do not think there will be a next election year if Trump get elected. I'm quite sure he will declare marshal law and say that there will be no more elections until "we have figured things out". I'm not taking any chances. At least I trust Hillary not to burn down the world as we know it during the next 4 years. Voting for a 3rd party is just a too big of a risk IMO. But we should not kid yourself here the house of Representatives will not vote for a 3rd party.
jessica
you can't even spell martial law.
as an aside, a marshall plan for the united states would probably be a good idea.
the way the single-party state has people brainwashed is really astounding. do you realize that the republican party has it's own voters worked up in exactly the same way? that they think hillary will declare an executive order on day one to seize everybody's guns and officially usher in the New World Order(tm)?
this is not even within the realm of constitutional possibility. we will have continuing creeping fascism one way or the other: they're both fascists, after all. but, trump would not actually be legally able to do any of the things you're fantasizing about.
it's far more likely that trump will spend 350 days a year on the golf course.
"fuck this. i'm outta here."
i want to be clear, because i suspect that this is democratic party propaganda: it's not believable. it's laughable. trump couldn't tell his dog to sit. you're running against charlie chaplin, and you're trying to paint him as hitler. it is so unbelievable - so ridiculous - that it may backfire to the point that it is the reason you lose.
the way you beat a guy like trump is that you expose his poor leadership qualities. you don't broadcast him as a strong leader.
"don't vote for my opponent, guys. he's a strong leader. vote for me. i'm less of a leader."
trump is the corrupt, absent ceo. he's the guy that takes credit for the work other people do. he's the lazy, do-nothing, loafer that inherited his dad's job. he doesn't care about anything except his golf game. he'll fiddle while the empire burns. he's corrupt. he's inept. he's incompetent.
if your propaganda comes off as b grade horror film trash, that's the reaction you're going to get to it: that the campaign is unprofessional. amateur. you want the campaign to be like army of darkness? then expect to lose.
just run on the economy. look at his tax policies. they're idiotic. even most republicans can figure that out. Dribrom Sunrock
It would not be the first time it have happened in USA. During the Civil War, Lincoln continually violated the Constitution, in some cases suspending the entire Constitution that he swore to uphold.
On September 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122). The law expanded the President’s authority to declare Martial Law under revisions to the Insurrection Act and actually allowed the President to take charge of National Guard troops without state governor authorization.
While certain aspects of the bill were rolled back in 2008, President Obama used the 2012 NDAA to further strengthen the Executive offices ability to declare Martial Law and added provisions that would allow military troops to detain U.S. citizens without a trial.
jessica
lincoln didn't "suspend the entire constitution". but, he had a war in front of him, which allowed him the constitutional prerequisite to suspend the rule of law - whether you like that or not. his declaration of martial law was, in fact, constitutional - and it was limited by congress.
you can't just declare martial law because you feel like it. nor can you suspend the constitution via executive order. the ndaa is a troubling piece of legislation, but it does not remove the basic necessity of war before martial law can be declared. nor does it remove congressional oversight.
i don't believe that my time is well spent in arguing the specifics of constitutional law with paid propagandists. you can choose to listen to me or to ignore me.
SneaksterMK
Kyle literally said it in the video though just because you don't wanna answer the question doesn't mean it doesn't exist since it's reality that Clinton or trump WILL (sadly) become POTUS
jessica
"i don't care which one wins - and neither should you!" is a valid answer. you might not like it. but it's not dodging anything.
i honestly think trump will be less interventionist, and i think that's a good thing. i'm not afraid of the word "isolationist". but, hillary will probably be a little bit more likely to push for deficit spending, which is also a good thing considering we're still on the brink of recession because of a continued deficit of government spending. so, they both have very weak upsides.
neither of the weak upsides overpower the awful downsides. they're equally terrible with all kinds of shit across the spectrum.
you could look at like this:
1) if you want to stop hillary from starting world war three, vote for trump.
2) if you want to stop trump from initiating an american perestroika, vote for hillary.
you're supposed to think one is better than the other?
no. not every set is well-ordered...
SneaksterMK
kyles gonna upload a video tomorrow about Jill stein and the lesser of two evils where he's gonna bring up even more great points
jessica
any reasonable approach to this would have to break it down issue-by-issue and concede that, if she is a lesser evil at all, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split.
on a hundred random issues, it's going to work out something like 53-47 in her favour.
again: it's by no means obvious. if you want to win this argument, you have to make it first.
SneaksterMK
except one believes in climate change and the other thinks it's a hoax. Although Hillary sold fracking all across the globe she at least won't rip up the fucking Paris agreement like trump said he would. Also I don't think anybody wants another antonin Scalia in the surpreme court
jessica
i don't see any evidence based argument that would suggest that we have any reason to think that hillary would pick a less conservative judge. whether you rip the agreement up or completely ignore it is simply a matter of theatre - it's the same end result, which is absolutely no action whatsoever. empty and entirely meaningless rhetoric aside, the reality is that trump has shown more awareness of climate change through his property investments than clinton did in four years as secretary of state. neither will do anything except drill more and ship more.
at least it doesn't look like trump is taking money from oil sheiks.
SneaksterMK
yes I know they're both extremely hawkish and such a risk. But we all want Bernie sanders policies to be implemented and I think we know that with a trump presidency it would ALL go backwards and we'd have no chance but with a Clinton administration we can at least hold her accountable and we'd have a much better chance of implementing progressive policies. And I feel like climate change is such a dealbreaker to me.... Bernie said it best, we should treat it as a world war 2 style threat and trump saying its a hoax is literally going completely backwards. And I know Hillary has a CLEAR track record of going to war but Mike pence voted for the war in Iraq and trump said he was in favor of invading Iraq. Trump also says as blatant as possible that he's willing to commit war crimes without using ANY coated language... That's dangerous man I'm not comparing him to hitler but even when hitler rose to power he didn't advocate the killing of many civilians... It's scary....
jessica
but, again: trump only claims he'd like to be a war criminal. hillary clinton is the legit thing, and ought to be sent to the hague, not the white house.
puttytat007
Jill Stein is our only hope thinking she can't win is not a valid point.
jessica
well, she won't win. but you can send a message...
he can explain this away and pull stuff out of his ass all day, the bottom line is that the idea doesn't make any sense. elections are not natural phenomena that can be understood through predictive modelling, they're random and unpredictable events that can at best be guessed at a few days before hand.
an educated political analysis is far more useful than anything this guy will ever come up with. and, that's coming from somebody with advanced degrees in mathematics.
listen to the political pundits, not the statisticians. politics is not physics, and it's just stupid to pretend that it is. this is just not a math problem.
you want to look at snap polls very close to the election, not models months away from it. the role of a model in an election needs to be to properly distribute data from snap polling, not to smooth it out. so, we need to find some way to take polling a few days before the election and apply it properly to the swing states. that's what a good model can do.
trump's numbers seem to rely more on reactions to terrorist attacks than anything else. if the next few months are relatively calm, he has absolutely no chance - and that is a rhetorical term, not a mathematical one. but, you want rhetoric here, not math. don't be fooled by scientific sounding quacks. but, if we see a spate of attacks, he could win on a wave of anti-muslim xenophobia. the clinton campaign has likely calculated the opposite.
put another way: he has to find a way to trick people into making a rash and poorly thought out decision. the data is pretty clear that he doesn't have a chance, otherwise.
but, please do keep in mind that the whole basis of our economy is to trick people into making irrational decisions.
i'm not going to make numbers up out of thin air and then cite arbitrary procedures that you don't understand in order to justify them.
i think he got a bump from orlando, and then another bump from munich. munich just happened to coincide with the convention.
we haven't yet seen a factor that would give clinton a bump. but, i think that's reflective of her failure to frame the narrative. for better or worse, trump appears to be in control of the narrative. that is, the fact that it's august and we're not sure what issues might give her a bump is pretty pathetic.
there's still time for clinton to take control of the narrative, but it seems to me that this election is going to be measured in terms of reactions to global terrorism - and he owns her on that issue, whether her campaign likes it or not.
that doesn't mean he's going to win, mind you. the conservatives controlled the narrative in canada in the last election, but that didn't help them win because they were so unpopular.
this was not initially constructed as a standalone work, but it became
one almost the moment that it was constructed. there was always an
intent to combine the sexuality themed tracks together at the front of
my first record, but the initial idea was something more like
frontloading the disc than building a cohesive work. it just happened to
build itself up that way, and was truly apparent as such on the very
first listen. even the phantom of the opera cover in the middle of the
track became topical in a sort of subversive way.
i first broke the piece off into a standalone file in the spring of 2014
as a mirror image to the sequence that ends my second record, which
actually *was* consciously written as a single work all the way back in
1996 (and appears that way at the end of the very first demo tape). i
thought that if the second record was going to have an epic then the
first should as well. as the first six tracks had long been a subset in
my mind, this was a natural thing to do. the title of the track was
first published as an upload to youtube in mar, 2014 on the
deathtokoalas channel, which is now deleted.
i did not initially number these tracks as symphonies due to their
incorporation of childish vocals, although i had planned to include them
on any symphonic compilation discs, nonetheless. i saw them more as
proto-symphonies - or just as beginner epics, where i was finding my
feet but ultimately still working out ideas.
it wasn't until i finished reclaiming my 1998 demos from tape at the end
of 2015 that i realized that i could resequence my first two records
from scratch and republish them as instrumental works. the ability to
reclaim these two epics as instrumental works, and consequently as full
symphonies, followed as a corollary of this. it was consequently not
until january, 2016 that i finally elevated the instrumental
reconstruction of this recording to the level of my first official
symphony, which is where it will now exist into perpetuity: eternally,
finally.
the focus in reconstruction was to erect a final version rather than
conform to the original mix, so later versions were prioritized over
earlier ones. the first through fourth sections are very similar to the
original album mix, whereas the fifth and sixth sections have been
replaced with expanded mixes.
once the instrumental version had been constructed for the record, i
felt i had lost something by removing the vocals - or at least some of
them. in the context of the improved master, i felt an edited vocal take
could actually elevate the symphony to a different and surreal level,
if presented in the right context. this context could not be on the
record, though, which had to be fully instrumental. instead, i decided
to place the vocal reconstruction as a standalone single, with the
instrumental as a flip side to it.
this is an incredibly dense piece of music that i'm proud to finally place in the serious part of my discography.
written and demoed from 1994-1998. initially constructed in this form in
june, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. sequenced on jan
6-7, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2014 & 2015. released jan 7, 2016. finalized
on july 29, 2016. this is my first symphony; as always, please use
headphones.
section one: initially written & recorded in 1997. re-recorded in
1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various
sources on jan 6, 2016.
section two: initially written in 1994. first full recording in 1996.
recreated in mar, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed
on july 18, 2015. sequenced jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section three: initially written by andrew lloyd webber. recorded in
1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. remastered from various
sources on jan 6, 2016.
section four: originally created in jan, 1998. a failed rescue was
attempted in 2013. reclaimed on july 5, 2015. expanded & sequenced
on jan 6, 2016. vocals added on jan 7, 2016.
section five: written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly
rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at
the end of may, 2015. remastered from the 2014 & 2015 sources on
jan 6, 2016.
section six: initially written in 1997. recreated in feb, 1998. a failed
rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 5, 2015. remixed july 12,
2015. vocals and electronics added on july 16, 2015. sequenced on jan 6,
2016.
