User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.8734 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
So the model claims voters hold Democrats more responsible on unemployment even when they are not holding the presidency. Or vice versa on Republicans and personal income. WTF. How is that predictive of anything?
And that's great, the error rate is big enough to drive a bus though it. 28 Electoral votes and 5 states seem like a very large margin to me. How am I supposed to take this poll seriously?
NC: Romney +11
Ohio: Romney +10
Florida: Romney +9
Virginia: Romney +8
Iowa: Romney +7
NH: Romney +6
Minn.: Romney: +4
Penn.: Romney +3
Maine: Obama +4
Mass.: Obama +5
And the best part: this is from their original, pre-debates August forecast. They had an October 4 press release saying their updated model has Romney doing even better.
If Romney wins Minnesota, I'll eat Moses Taylor's angel food cake hat. And it's about 10 years old by now.
Like the MSNBC clip I posted last night, I wasn't looking to start any big debates by mentioning this Colorado model. I was simply pointing out that there's at least one model out there that's been predicting a Romney win, contrary to the quote from Nate on the last page which seemed to imply that his model was the most conservative (in a statistical sense) of the various election models.
I need to read that full article from FiveThirtyEight, but Nate's claim is surprising. The analysis I've been reading has all generally had Nate the furthest out on a limb vis-a-vis Obama's chances.
Well, that's the whole point -- it's a different theory of predicting election outcomes.
Well, there's certainly no question that it's different. Can't argue with that.
BTW SPEAKING OF NATE, he's now got Obama's chances up to 71.0%, up 9.9% from his most recent low point on October 12th.** So I guess go load up your Rocky Mountain musket and give it your best shot. I'm actually glad to see someone play the part of the persistent contrarian, whatever I may think of your poll readings.
**I'm not ascribing any particular significance to these relatively small percentage shifts, other than to say (a) I'm glad they seem to be moving S-L-O-W-L-Y in the right direction, and (b) the longer it remains in the vicinity of where it is now, the fewer days that Romney will have to make it up. Though again, this is just Nate, and not Rasmussen or www.unskewed.whatever.
edit: Actually this appears to be their original numbers as the electoral votes equals 213 for Obama whereas they now have him at 208. In the updated study Obama loses New Mexico and basically all of his numbers go down a % or two.
Oklahoma 27.68Wyoming 27.72
Utah 28.42
Idaho 30.65
Alaska 32.57
Alabama 32.75
Arkansas 33.14
Louisiana 34.24
Nebraska 34.67
Kentucky 35.08
North Dakota 35.34
Tennessee 35.47
Kansas 36.09
West Virginia 36.3
Mississippi 37.06
South Dakota 37.41
Texas 37.78
South Carolina 39.53
Georgia 41.09
Montana 41.46
Arizona 42.75
Missouri 43.69
Indiana 44.17
North Carolina 44.46
Ohio 45
Florida 45.75
Virginia 46.05
Iowa 46.98
New Hampshire 47.2
Minnesota 47.87
Colorado 48.19
Pennsylvania 48.24
Wisconsin 49.92
New Mexico 50.93
Michigan 51.38
New Jersey 51.91
Oregon 52
Maine 52.04
Nevada 52.32
Massachusetts 52.39
Washington 52.49
Illinois 55.17
Connecticut 55.56
Delaware 55.73
Maryland 55.82
California 56.52
New York 56.73
Rhode Island 57.94
Vermont 60.69
Hawaii 66.34
DC 86.36
Nate Silver doesn't even qualify as #1 for the latter half of 2008.
Maybe, but Palin was the governor of a state, while "Poblano" was a baseball writer. Within 1-2 months, Nate went from a total unknown in politics to making prime-time TV appearances to analyze the presidential election. It was not only a remarkable ascent, but a remarkably quick ascent.
Anyone trying to get a bead on turnout?
Obama would seem to have a hard time duplicating 2008 among numerous usually low-turnout voters in 2012.
Romeny could have problems with arch-conservatives and even anti-Mormon types, if that isn't already the same crowd.
Could that be the biggest election-turner of all?
Wasn't that based on him bucking the trend and predicting an Obama primary win from very early in the process?
The anti-Mormon stuff seems to be coming from the left, with a lot of "Hey shouldn't folks on the right be rejecting Romney since he is a Mormon?" There may be some other noise, but I'm not seeing it getting much traction. There are plenty of people that don't buy Mormon theology but don't see any reason a Mormon couldn't be a good President.
No.
In part, but I think a lot of it was from the approach. It seems obvious now, but there really was a vacuum for the kind of work that Nate was doing. I mean, Dick Morris still gets booked on shows, for crying out loud. I think what helped Nate the most was that he actually cared about getting it right. Nate has really clearly demonstrated the hackitude of most political pundits (on both sides of the aisle).
Joe is right, though, he ascended very quickly. I'm still surprised today when he does things like be on The Daily Show.
I think mostly because he had a great story. Here is a math baseball nerd who predicts election who was very accurate in his first go round (primaries). It had a hook. Add to it, his new analysis and the hack competition and it is still kind of amazing
That or liberal media bias.
In part, but I think a lot of it was from the approach. It seems obvious now, but there really was a vacuum for the kind of work that Nate was doing. I mean, Dick Morris still gets booked on shows, for crying out loud.
Hey, don't knock Dick Morris. After all, he also predicted Hillary's electoral demise in 2008.
Of course he also predicted that her main opponent would be Condoleezza Rice rather than Obama, but we shouldn't get hung up on details.
Yeah, even if some voters opposed Romney in the primaries because of his religion, I never bought into the idea that, once he wrapped up the nomination, it would matter in the general; it was always clear that the base's sole motivation was getting rid of Obama, and everything else, including religion,** was (distantly) secondary. I suppose there are a few evangelicals or baptists or something who would've otherwise voted for the Republican in the general but won't vote for Romney, but not in numbers great enough to make any difference (and probably mostly in states Romney's going to carry comfortably anyway).
**Besides, even if it came down to religion, better the Mormon than the "Muslim," right?
This is a more intersting question than it appears. First of all only Libertarians (or maybe just Ray) believe everything is on a linear Left/Right spectrum, but ignoring that, the answer is both yes and no.
Lynching was once more common. I don't know that it was ever expected or OK, but it was clearly to a degree within the social norm. Changing that norm, repsecting peoples rights (first among them the right not to be lynched and subjected to similar hate crimes) does seem to fall into the typical Left bucket. Of course since then it has become a societal norm to not lynch folks and be against lynching (and hate crimes in general - though we onthe left are still working on this one).
Once it became a norm it loses its flavor of Left based issue and becomes just normal. It is a similar story with slavery, where it certainly was a Left issue, but is not any more, and I think pretty much exactly the same thing will play out with Gay rights. And of course there is a similar sort of thing that has happened with soe of the rights ideas, belief in free markets is perhaps one we are seeing were the Right still has a higher regard for them, but it is basically a norm to accept free markets as a good thing.*
So does this mean the Left gets ownership of "No lynchings"? I would argue no, any more than modern Republicans get credit for ending slavery. Time passes, societal norms are ever changing, but the politics of the day has to be evaluated in light of current circumstance. Politics is a process of doign stuff, but it is not sociology or history or anything else for studying eras or making cross cultural comparisons.
I would argue even asking the question about where we are moving as a country over time (certainly when talking more than a generation) really misses the point (can't be asked sensibly) - it is not a political question but a sociological/historical question and should be framed as such and be from that perspective.
* yes there are some folks that don't like free markets. There are also some who want to go back to lynching. While those two groups are disparate and the former is larger and more influencial than the latter, neither group is anywhere close to a majority or even plurality.
Silver's "presidential geography" on CT talked in detail about how while CT would almost certainly stay blue, its high population of Wall Street high-rollers combined with some general erosion in support for Obama would probably mean a modest win. Certainly, the idea that CT will be bluer than MA is laughable.
Also: 45 percent for Obama in Ohio in a 2-party race. Uh huh.
I think there is a little more to this than is said above. I think there is some political calculation to it, but I think there is also some genuine lack of understaning/puzzlement expressed about the right from the left.
The left has been on the other end of religious attacks from the right forever. Our religious leaders are never good enough, religious enough, and so on. We are godless and evil (I am summarizing a bit). We (on the left) also see things like the religious right talking about Mormonism as a cult, as not being Christian and so on.
Between the labeling and our experience with religious attacks we expect the vitriol we have experienced to be aimed at that "guy from the cult" but it really has not been. I am not saying it should have been, and intellectually it is not surprising (since both left and right are somewhat tribal), but I think for many on the left (and perhaps center) there is an enmotional expectation that is just not being (or going to be) met.
Some folks just don't understand that of course the right was going to rally around their guy. Though if Romney loses I suspect there will be a strong undercurrent of anti-Mormon vitriol unleashed, though I am (thankfully) not connected enough to that tribe to see much of it.
Sam Wang's definitely been more bullish on Obama than 538 for a while now. I'm not too familiar with the others Nate mentions.
I will gladly help in this. There is a near zero chance MN goes Romney, especiallty given the current state of the local GOP. They did really well in 2010 at the state level, but sicne then have had a bunch of scandals, turmoil, and money issues. The local GOP is trying to hold on to their gains from 2010 and go against one of the most popular politicians in MN (Sen Amy K), they are spending very little time and effort doing anything about getting Romney elected.
The left has been on the other end of religious attacks from the right forever. Our religious leaders are never good enough, religious enough, and so on. We are godless and evil (I am summarizing a bit). We (on the left) also see things like the religious right talking about Mormonism as a cult, as not being Christian and so on.
I had a very religious Christian roommate a few years ago, and I remember being pretty surprised when he insisted that Mormons weren't Christians. I was like, "They believe in Christ, right? It's in the name of their church..."
Some folks just don't understand that of course the right was going to rally around their guy.
Yeah, from the perspective of most on the right it's more important to be on the correct side of certain social/political issues than it is to be a member of the correct church. And it's more important to be "religious" (as long as that religion isn't Muslim) than it is to be Christian.
Also, Romney is very much the establishment candidate. He's the guy with the most money, the good hair, he's a former governor of a blue state, he's basically been running for President for 6 years now. If he were an unknown underdog, I think people might focus on his religion more.
The Catholic Church does not recognize the LDS as a Christian church. Surprisingly or not, the Catholic Church does recognize the basic Christianity of most Protestant denominations. I don't know whether the term "separated brethren" is still in use, but in Catholic doctrine, Protestants are generally seen as just that: Christians who have erred in belief. Mormons are not seen as Christian at all. The mainstream US Protestant denominations hold a similar view of the LDS.
One basic theological problem with accepting the LDS as Christian, from these perspectives (which are hardly wacko-right positions; I mean, they include United Methodists and Episcopalians as well as Catholics), is that Mormons rebaptize converts (as well as performing the famous proxy baptisms that make everyone Mormon retroactively sooner or later). Another is the Mormon insistence on a second revelation and additional scripture.
But these distinctions, while enormous from a Christian perspective, don't constitute thinking of Mormonism as a cult. The churches I've mentioned have considerable official respect for Judaism and Islam, after all, which are considerably less Christian than the LDS. There's no implied disrespect in these positions.
BS. Most of it came from a marginal strain of nutball evangelical right wingers during the primaries, which has mostly disappeared for one reason or another. To the extent that anti-Mormonism has come from the left, it's mostly been in the form of jokes about Romney's underwear. There are plenty of people on the left who are suspicious / hostile to conservative religious sects in general, and there are plenty of people on the left who are fully cognizant of Mormonism's racist history, but beyond Andrew Sullivan, I've yet to see any real attempt to tie this to Romney. To most of the left, Mormonism is just one more right wing religion, and as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, the deal is simply "what of it?"
Well I think the left has mentioned Romney's Mormonism a fair amount and verbalized the expectation that the Christian Right would have issues with Romney. I don't think the Left has expressed anti-Mormon positions in general (other than as said above the occasional magic underwear comment). I thought the statement was about the former rather than the later (but I could be wrong).
Mormonism deserves any ridicule it gets. True, all religions do to some extent or other, but Mormonism is down there with Scientology and Wicca and Snake-Handlers and Deepak Chopra. Religions aren't deserving of respect as a matter of course, but some achieve the level of thinking of them only in terms of the truly absurd.
The time for it to surface was in the primaries, and in fact Romney did very poorly in the South, partly for that reason. But now he's what they got, and they're on the bus. None of this is very surprising. The interesting question is what it does for the future. Does Mormonism disappear as a political problem?
Attention in DC is no longer on baseball. We're back to obsessing over RGIII.
In all fairness, RG3 is more interesting than both politics and DC baseball. Guy might be the most interesting man in the world right now.
Let me guess they all claim the same success rate right?
Not until he greys up his beard a little.
No the data was not applied "retroactively" to each election year, the model was BASED on 1980 to 2008 data (as is just about everyone else's model) so of course it "works" retroactively- so does everyone else's models, including the ones that have the race as a tie and the ones that have Obama in the lead.
The "test" is/will be 2012 and 2016 and 2020...
or if you "find" pre-1980 data (if it exists at all) to fit in the model then you can "test" it retroactively.
also their admitted margins of error seem a bit higher than what the various polling aggregators have done the last couple of elections
And at some level Nate's a friend of mine, so take this with a grain of salt, but the dude is really, really smart, and he writes pretty well. He didn't gain attention just because he predicted some stuff write. He did it in a way that was interesting to follow, well explained, and fairly easy to digest for the type of market that reads the New York Times.
I'm so proud to have coined that "angel food cake hat" trope, sad though that is.
I believe Minnesota has the longest active streak of voting Dem in presidential elections--'76 onward. Of course, native son Mondale was on the ticket for the first three of those.
It's not, it's no more a Christian Church than the Catholic Church is Jewish.
If you're looking for people to say Mormons should be deported (or self-deport!) you're going to get to marginal figures, but there are countless examples of unease with Mormonism surfacing in the Republican primaries. That unease is not as strong as the unease with Obama, and so people are now behaving rationally, not hypocritically, in choosing between two imperfect options.
I don't know that I've ever met a Mormon who wasn't a really nice person (including Dale Murphy), and I've never found any of them to be proselytizers like a lot of people from mainstream Christian religions. So I have very little negative to say about actual people who are Mormon. But the religion is pretty messed up, and there seem to be far too many "convenient" changes in church doctrine. Joseph Smith wanted to mess around with other women, so great news! God says it's OK to have more than one wife! Until the feds started breathing down their necks, at which point God said it wasn't cool anymore. I suppose most religions probably have similar conveniences, but they also tend to have thousands of years of history to muddy the waters a bit. Granted, I don't really subscribe to any religion, so take from that what you will.
he's also really well spoken. I heard him on NPR last week. I posted a link to a recording of the show about 20pages back.
Can we all just admit that when people talk about "anti-Mormonism from the left" all they're really talking about is that one blog post from Andrew Sullivan?
538: 50.1 to 48.7 Obama
Pollster: 47.1 to 46.9 Romney
RCP: 47.7 to 47.0 Romney
Unskewed: 50.0 to 45.8 Romney
EC:
538: 290.7 to 247.3 Obama
Pollster: 303 to 235 Obama
RCP: 281 to 257 Obama
Princeton EC: 293 to 245 Obama
Unskewed: 359 to 179 Romney
BTW if you don't like Nate's pollster quality ratings, here's ARG's rating of polls/aggregators based on 2010:
In case you were wondering, YouGov's last poll was completed Monday and had Obama up 48 to 46
Id doesn't look like RCP includes YouGov (Pollster and 538 do)
So do Muslims, and in kind of the same way too (relative to how Christians view Jesus).
false advertising
I'm not claiming that they are a "cult"- they've been around awhile, people are born into it, raised, and die in it now for a couple of generations and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, they are a religion - like any other established religion at this point, but they most certainly are not a Christian Church unless you are going to draw that tent wide enough to encompass Muslims, Bahai's, the Moonies etc...
I didn't want to be accused of bias in omitting him, you all can form your own opinions on him.
Anyway, his comment that the stock price was a "pipe dream" or whatever seems very subjective.
EDIT: I see the judge has unsealed the testimony, so I guess we're about to find out.
4743:
I'm looking for passion commensurate with the way they, the right-wing religious fundies, acted at other times. Most of what you cite is pretty tepid stuff compared to the way they fume and foam at other times with other people, and I don't see that explains the discrepancy. And I have no doubt that if it were Obama, or a Democrat, it would be different.
I think the "Left" should be making more of Romney's lunatic religion. Has he ever been queried on matters dealing with the teaching of evolution in schools--or, rather, the teaching of creationism/intelligent design? Or a host of other science questions. True, though, Romney doesn't seem to be the intellectually reflective type. He accepts his faith, minimizes matters that have to do with the way his Church viewed women and minorities (especially Blacks), and just movies on. But he should have to stand trial, to quote The Who, not given the pass that he has been given.
I can't imagine Allred having anything interesting to say. She and Trump should have an ego-off, loser to eat the winner's hair.
I don't think anyone here is paying Allred any attention whatsoever, actually.
What was that Trump bombshell he promised?
Trump's at least kind of entertaining in a totally self-regarding clownshoes sort of way.
That his latest "bombshell" was such a dud made it all the more entertaining, in that it's fun to contemplate that some were actually getting hot and bothered over whatever was coming, and...nothing.
Agreed. I briefly noted her name being on a couple blog headlines the past couple days, but didn't read the articles; my first inkling as to what she's on about now came from Ray's post 5 minutes ago.
First of all, I agree with everyone that Allred is a classic attention-seeking nutjob.
Allred's claim is that Romney knowingly lied under oath to help his friend. I think at some level, this is a call back to the Clinton impeachment. I don't think anyone will really care.
The alleged fire is that Romney an initial investor in Staples, a board member of Staples (a man who reaped a $13m profit through Staples IPO the same year he testified) and close personal friend of Staples' founder allegedly lied at his friend's divorce hearing concerning the value of Staples in order to help his friend (and harm his friend's soon to be ex-wife)
Of course there are problems with the ex-wife's version of events, among other things she held onto her Staples stock for 2+ years after Romney's testimony- and the only way I see this as being vaguely interesting is if Romney's testimony contradicted what he was saying publicly (or privately to potential investors)as a Staples board member at the time- but if that was the case the Ex-wife would have known that at the time don't you think.
FWIW Staples stock capitalization was pretty much in the toilet at the time and for the next 3 or so years before beginning a remarkably steady and sustained ascent
Trump's a lot of fun as long as you don't take him seriously at all. The world's most elaborate combover, the insanely inflated ego, the momentous proclaimations of immense import that are inevitably meaningless and/or wrong; guy's pretty awesome actually.
Obama was asked what Trump has against him on Leno:
That's about all there is to it, at least within the context of the current election campaign.
----------------------------------------------
Obama was asked what Trump has against him on Leno:
If that isn't the perfect level of seriousness with which to take Donald Trump, I'm going to have to wait until a better one comes along. You have to actually watch the 56 seconds of video to get just how devastating it was---the text alone doesn't begin to to it justice.
I tried. The video isn't loading up.
My guess is that he had something else (maybe the unfiled divorce papers bit), that was so unsubstantiated and/or ridiculous that the Romney people talked him off it to avoid blowback and came up with this other BS about the college transcripts to save face. I may be giving everybody involved too much credit though.
QFT. They are both entertaining, but in different ways. Anyone that takes either seriously should be defenestrated*
* Term used only because I am always amused there is a specific word for being thrown out a window. And looking it up, I had no idea that (one of) the incidient from which the term was coined helped spark the Thirty Years War. Now I like the term even more.
I tried. The video isn't loading up.
Funny, it worked perfectly through tshipman's original link in # 4764, but when I checked my own (copied) link after I made my post in response, it stopped and started quite a bit. Try the first link and see if it's any better.
You don't like comedy, Sam?
Yes, but like that can be dangerous. They have no scruples and will leave no throat uncut in order to get their way. There life's blood is a sense of vindictiveness.
A few years ago, I was part of a now defunct diorama club. My personal best effort was a simple street scene with a row of buildings on one side. One of the buildings had a broken window. Below the window in the street, laying where they had been thrown, were a pile of tiny, replicated albums from Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull, ELP and the like.
Well, what happen to Clinton. Enough people cared to cause a lot of needless and pointless trouble. Never underestimate the enemy when he's rich and hateful. Having said that, that characterization doesn't really coordinate with the Democrats, so, yes, it will turn to nothing. They have no endurance when it comes to personal vendettas.
The thought crossed my mind as well. There is no way in the world that Trump thought that this publicity stunt was really an "OBombshell". If he did, his delusional landscape is massive.
You can't possibly be having difficulty believing that to be the case?
It might've been fun to hear the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh bluster about how damning it was that the Obamas *didn't* get divorced.
QFT. Let's put this as clearly as possible. Every day of his life, Donald Trump is told by some very beautiful woman that he is sexy, attractive and better than all the other guys. That's all he ever hears; how smart he is; how attractive he is; how the other guys are just jealous. He lives in a completely self-contained feedback loop. OF COURSE he eats his own dog food.
That said I vote we talk about something more relevent to the election - like the Thirty Years War :)
I really am rather jealous of this.
The aggregators (unskewed excluded) are all actually in a pretty tight cluster- if one is out on a limb for Obama it's not Silver, it's that Wang guy from the Princeton Election Consortium. At any given point in time the aggregators vary among eachother by just 2 to 2.5 points
Individual polls vary quite a bit more widely - at any given point in time the most pro-Obama poll differs from the most Pro-Romney poll by 7 to 10 points
The guys using "fundamentals" models (like those Colorado Profs) - vary even more- you have guys "predicting a landslide/near landslide win for Obama and other guys predicting a landslide/near landslide win for Romney... and they pretty much all claim the same level of success at predicting the past.
His model is quite "conservative" in the statistical sense- and so is RCP's or Pollster's- the only aggregator whose statistical methodology is not conservative is Unskewed- of course his methodology is skewed* to favor conservative political causes...
*I'm sorry I could not resist
I still love that old Saturday Night skit, Trump trades places with a janitor who looks just like him out of curiosity as to how the other half lives...
The second the janitor is dressed as Trump he calls in an aide, and as Trump tells the aide to take the janitor [the real Trump] out and "shoot him in the swamp"
Yes. Including the Supreme Court, which ordered him disbarred from practicing before them, and including the Arkansas supreme court, which suspended his law license, and including the judge who found Clinton to be in contempt of court, fined him $90,000, and referred him to the Arkansas bar for disciplinary action. Etc.
People totally causing a lot of needless and pointless trouble. All because he perjured himself and obstructed justice.
Suddenly, liberals don't care about giving a woman who claims to be the victim of sexual harrassment a fair hearing. Which is kind of odd, because usually they just accept the accusation alone as proof.
The thought crossed my mind as well. There is no way in the world that Trump thought that this publicity stunt was really an "OBombshell". If he did, his delusional landscape is massive.
The easiest way to check this would be to wait a bit, and see if Trump tries to sell the "real" story to some tabloid after the election. The one thing you can be sure about WRT Donald Trump is that we haven't heard the last from him about any bee that happens to be stuck in his hairpiece.
------------------------------------
Never underestimate the enemy when he's rich and hateful. Having said that, that characterization doesn't really coordinate with the Democrats, so, yes, it will turn to nothing. They have no endurance when it comes to personal vendettas.
It'd be interesting to compile a list of politically obsessed and / or crazed billionaires and multi-millionaires. I'd bet that you'd find that when it came to putting their money where their mouths were, the overwhelming majority of them would be found on the right end of the spectrum. Who would be the hyper-liberal equivalent of the Koch Brothers, Adelson, or the various oil men and restaurant chain owners who've been waging total warfare against Obama since the day he got into office? And when it comes to other political causes, who are the liberal counterparts to Tom Monaghan or the owner of Chik-Fil-A? Ben and Jerry, maybe, but how many Ben and Jerries are there out there in terms of numbers?
It's almost as if they don't really believe the superstitious hokum they profess so openly and obnoxiously. One might even be lead to the conclusion that for the vast, vast majority of right-wing religious zealots, their professed religious devotion is best understood as a calculated cudgel to be used in pursuit of political power and personal profit to the exclusion of any philosophical consistency.
Are we talking about Bill Clinton or Barry Bonds?
Bayonets?
For people who are this delusional, you don't expect them to get this far in life. You'd think that the voices in his head, or the imaginary friends, or the conspiracy theories would have overwhelmed them by now.
Rampant uncontrollable ego is expected, however.
Why would Trump need to sell anything to a tabloid? Isn't he himself a walking, talking tabloid?
This probably says a lot about what my interests were when I was 12, but I'm the opposite. I only know what defenestrate means because of the incident at the beginning of the Thirty Years' War.
It's my theory that everyone has something they'll perjure themselves about. If the state devotes enough resources to it, they'll probably find it. I'll take the stand some day and, trying to wriggle out of utter mortification, I will testify that I always thought trading for Adam Eaton was a putrid idea. And some special prosecutor will find a 2006 post where I say "ADAM EATON FTW!!" and bingo, I am BDC, Convicted Perjurer, and I will lose my BBTF account and have my subscription to B-Ref PI revoked.
I fully allow that Bill Clinton perjured himself and that various authorities had no option but to disbar and fine him. I am extremely skeptical about what kind of "justice" he was obstructing by not mortifying himself to tell the truth on a matter irrelevant to a frivolous lawsuit whose only intent was to harass him about things that mortified him. There but for the grace of being unimportant people go every one of us.
He's 66, maybe he really is losing it. I mean he's always been a bit eccentric, but it seems to me that every year it gets a little bit worse than the year before, the bizarre spats with other celebs seem to get a little bit odder.
Howard Hughes got very far in life- and he ended up far more delusional than Trump is now- Trump could in fact have something organically wrong with him at this point...
Ever read Heinlein's later stuff? A lot of it was like his internal "censor" was off, Trump's like that now- only his never worked so well to begin with.
Trump made his money 30+ years ago. He's old and probably hitting some dementia. And he's too "rich" (at least on paper) and famous for his inner circle to tell him that he's crazy. And he is classically paranoid-conspiratorial in his thinking, such that anyone outside of the inner circle who tells him he is crazy is part of the conspiracy.
Old people go crazy sometimes.
The next thing you know, you'll be telling me that there's been gambling going on at Rick's.
-----------------------------------------------
The easiest way to check this would be to wait a bit, and see if Trump tries to sell the "real" story to some tabloid after the election.
Why would Trump need to sell anything to a tabloid? Isn't he himself a walking, talking tabloid?
Point taken.
As it happens my (hopefully) last research source for my thesis are some military training manuals from the 1630s. It's not really relevant to my research, but perhaps this can resolve once and for all the great issue of whether bayonets were in use during the Thirty Years' War.
The problem was that the witness doesn't get to decide what was relevant to the matter; the judge does.
But hilariously, in this case the witness actually did get to decide: the subject matter was relevant because Clinton in his earlier pandering to womens groups had supported the expansion of the FRE such that such pattern evidence was not off limits.
The philosophy that brought us the Inquisition and the Star Chamber :)
That word, it does not mean what you think it means.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main