• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
A friend is sending me screencaps of her mother-in-law's crazy Facebook comments. Stuff like implying Hillary is lying about not wanting to have taken on that rape case. But she also threw in some wild thing I swear I've never heard before, that Bill Clinton had a son with a prostitute. Where do people even find this shit? Back page of some grocery store tabloid?
 
A friend is sending me screencaps of her mother-in-law's crazy Facebook comments. Stuff like implying Hillary is lying about not wanting to have taken on that rape case. But she also threw in some wild thing I swear I've never heard before, that Bill Clinton had a son with a prostitute. Where do people even find this shit? Back page of some grocery store tabloid?

One thing I've learned from Facebook is that there are web sites that make Fox News by comparison seem legit.
 

Grief.exe

Member
A friend is sending me screencaps of her mother-in-law's crazy Facebook comments. Stuff like implying Hillary is lying about not wanting to have taken on that rape case. But she also threw in some wild thing I swear I've never heard before, that Bill Clinton had a son with a prostitute. Where do people even find this shit? Back page of some grocery store tabloid?

Infowars, DRUDGE, Breitbart.
 

Boke1879

Member
Thank you Donald. Your inability to let anything go has compounded your problems. Not only at your rallies do you fly off the rails about this issue but you're constantly tweeting about it as well.
 

iammeiam

Member
A friend is sending me screencaps of her mother-in-law's crazy Facebook comments. Stuff like implying Hillary is lying about not wanting to have taken on that rape case. But she also threw in some wild thing I swear I've never heard before, that Bill Clinton had a son with a prostitute. Where do people even find this shit? Back page of some grocery store tabloid?

The Clinton's secret kid thing is old as dirt and just another 90s Clinton Scandal resurrected. It's insane how much stuff the Republican party kicked up in the 90s about them, and how they're trying to just redo it because it didn't work out how they wanted the first time.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
The Clinton's secret kid thing is old as dirt and just another 90s Clinton Scandal resurrected. It's insane how much stuff the Republican party kicked up in the 90s about them, and how they're trying to just redo it because it didn't work out how they wanted the first time.
Huh, don't know how I never came across that in the 90s amidst everything else.
 

Teggy

Member
How does a guy who is on his 3rd marriage and had admitted to cheating say "nobody respects women more than me" and think anyone believes him? It's comical, but he says it (and lots of other hyperbole) over and over.

He got laughed at at the debate when he said he was a gentleman!
 

rhandino

Banned
A friend is sending me screencaps of her mother-in-law's crazy Facebook comments. Stuff like implying Hillary is lying about not wanting to have taken on that rape case. But she also threw in some wild thing I swear I've never heard before, that Bill Clinton had a son with a prostitute. Where do people even find this shit? Back page of some grocery store tabloid?
dalskd;laksa;lkjda;s

I see that the James Evans tactic to drop that old conspiracy theory on CNN that other day worked... If only his supporters could act rational like Carol Costello.
 
How does a guy who is on his 3rd marriage and had admitted to cheating say "nobody respects women more than me" and think anyone believes him? It's comical, but he says it (and lots of other hyperbole) over and over.

He got laughed at at the debate when he said he was a gentleman!

Because nothing says respect for women like explaining how they're too ugly for you to have raped them.
 
The overall answer (ratio of two sums of sequences) does appear to be 1/2 though. That's a little counter intuitive.

Yes it is, maybe. :) But here's an intuitive explanation.

Imagine that instead of "birth", babies are produced by a baby dispenser, which will randomly dispense a boy or a girl according to the aforementioned uniform distribution. Now, every couple that asks the dispenser for a baby will keep pulling babies from the dispenser until they receive a male. When they get their boy, it's simply the next couple's turn to take babies out of the dispenser. Since the babies in the population are formed by an order preserving subset of the original random sequence, the distribution is preserved by the law of large numbers.

This is why having a preference for male children on its own does not cause sex-ratio imbalances. It is only the addition of infanticide and sex discriminating abortion which causes such imbalances.

Follow up question: in countries with sex-ratio imbalances, should abortions for non-medical reasons be illegal if the couple has been told the gender of the child? i.e. should learning the gender of your child void your right to an abortion of convenience?
 

PaulCRose

Member
The mental gymnastics it takes to attack Clinton for debate prep is astounding.

I guess you're allowed that luxury when you've one the first debate according to all the online polls.
 

royalan

Member
Wait, it wasn't just Trump rambling?

Hillary should be drug tested before the debate is really an angle the Trump campaign is going to go with?

LOL
 
If trump acts like this after he loses I'm very worried about the future of our democracy and the immediate danger this could cause

Screen-Shot-2012-11-07-at-12.13.43-AM3.png
 

wutwutwut

Member
Yes it is, maybe. :) But here's an intuitive explanation.

Imagine that instead of "birth", babies are produced by a baby dispenser, which will randomly dispense a boy or a girl according to the aforementioned uniform distribution. Now, every couple that asks the dispenser for a baby will keep pulling babies from the dispenser until they receive a male. When they get their boy, it's simply the next couple's turn to take babies out of the dispenser. Since the babies in the population are formed by an order preserving subset of the original random sequence, the distribution is preserved by the law of large numbers.
I was going to write up a complete proof based on the two sequences, but that's a pretty good explanation!

On topic, this is Hillary at her finest.

Cu0sUj0XgAAjfUa
 

ascii42

Member
It won't really. Each birth is independent of all others. Each baby or set of twins or triplets has a 50/50 chance to be male or female, regardless of what the family already has. Have babies until you get a boy then stop is similar to a Martingale strategy. It guarantees you a boy eventually but gets balanced out by a small number of parents having lots and lots and lots of girls. Half of families have one child only, which is a boy (+1 boy overall). But no families have two boys. Meanwhile 1/8 of families have two girls and one boy (+1 girl overall), then 1/16 of families have three girls and one boy (+2 girls overall), and so on. The girls get concentrated in a small number of families.

This is also true if families stop after either a boy or ten girls.

I figured it wouldn't. It would however affect the assertion that no families can have two boys. But yeah, that shouldn't affect the math.
 
So I dont know if Wikileaks is blowing its load or saving the most damning emails a day before election, but so far it looks like they miscalculated in released batches of emails every few days. Over time, it's gone from zomg speeches! to duh, call me when you find something in it.
 

Grief.exe

Member
Wait, it wasn't just Trump rambling?

Hillary should be drug tested before the debate is really an angle the Trump campaign is going to go with?

LOL

Everytime I hear Kayleigh say that we need to get back to the issues that effect the American people I just think, look at your candidate.

He is perpetuating these ridiculous narratives over and over, either implicitly, through his past and present behavior, or explicitly by his actions.

The most absurd portion of Kayleigh's argument is the policies themselves perpetuated by the Republican party and Trump are untenable.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
So I dont know if Wikileaks is blowing its load or saving the most damning emails a day before election, but so far it looks like they miscalculated in released batches of emails every few days. Over time, it's gone from zomg speeches! to duh, call me when you find something in it.
I mean they spent months hyping how they're going to end Hillary over the summer all for each release to be less interesting than the last.

Their little live-stream that they hyped up that turned out to be literally nothing and even included Assange walking back what he said about Hillary and downplaying upcoming leaks should be all the proof we need that they don't have anything.
 
True story, I had a nightmare this morning that the election was happening and this was the result:


I was lying in bed for a few minutes thinking "oh god I can't believe we barely won that, how did we fuck up" and then I realized I had no way to have known what the election was while in bed and that it wasn't November 8
 

Grief.exe

Member
True story, I had a nightmare this morning that the election was happening and this was the result:



I was lying in bed for a few minutes thinking "oh god I can't believe we barely won that, how did we fuck up" and then I realized I had no way to have known what the election was while in bed and that it wasn't November 8

You must have the same crack dealer as Reince to even dream of PA flipping.
 
No, Trump doesn't know how voting numbers come in. He tweeted those before the final counts were in and, at one point, Romney was leading the popular vote. But it was clear to everyone he was losing.

I want a camera on that mans face all throughout election night. It would be the single greatest piece of footage ever shot on film.
 

ascii42

Member
No, Trump doesn't know how voting numbers come in. He tweeted those before the final counts were in and, at one point, Romney was leading the popular vote. But it was clear to everyone he was losing.

Yeah, he seemed to forget about California, in particular.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I want to see Hannity melt down on Twitter on Election Night. He's been going after various people every few days, and I hope he's there to react in real-time as things unfold that night.
 

Iolo

Member
Trump thinks Obama lost the popular vote in 2012?

Note the date on those, it is still election night. He was one of the popular vote truthers, where they were looking at early returns and saying how could Obama win when he is so far behind in the popular vote? The answer is a lot of Obama's margin came from California which takes forever to finish counting. As we recall from the primaries. And as I recall from 2008, when we watched Obamas margin drift upwards to 7% over the course of a couple weeks.

Expect this same argument to be made on election night 2016 (another reason I think Hair Moussolini will not concede).
 

wutwutwut

Member
Follow up question: in countries with sex-ratio imbalances, should abortions for non-medical reasons be illegal if the couple has been told the gender of the child? i.e. should learning the gender of your child void your right to an abortion of convenience?
I don't know whether it should be the case, but in some countries like India it is already the case. Abortions are completely legal so sex determinations are banned.
 

Slizeezyc

Member
Some political violence occurring after Trump's loss is a fair concern after three Trump supporters were just arrested for planning a major terror attack against Muslim Americans.

The FBI is good at catching right-wing terrorist organizations before they do stuff and most of Trump's supporters are not physically fit at all so a major insurrection like the Taliban is unlikely, but I would expect some terror attacks in November and December from Nazis.

Is the FBI good at catching them because they're, well, not very bright?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom