rkbabang

Just think. In four years Hillary will run against Trump again and we can have a repeat of this whole election season! What fun.

I don't think they are rigged, but I think their methodology must be flawed in some systematic way in order for them to have been so universally wrong. If the goal is to create a "scientific" poll that accurately predicts how people will vote, then you would think that this proves that however it is being done it is not working so methods need to be adjusted next time. When your methodology doesn't produce results that turn out to be true, it is time to look at your methodology because it is flawed. I don't know why, but I do have some theories. Are they calling only landlines? Maybe Hillary won overwhelmingly with people who not only still have landlines but answer them when they don't recognize the caller ID. Even with cellphones I would never answer a call from a number I didn't recognize, if it were important they could leave a message and I'd call back. Therefore I would never be able to take part in any of these polls. Also what time of day are they calling? If during the day, they are selecting for housewives, elderly women, and the unemployed. Who is answering these calls and how can you extrapolate the answers they give to all of society? I suspect the answer is "you can't". And then there is always the question are people being honest with the pollsters? I'm not sure you can ever adjust for that, because you have no idea how the person you talked to ended up voting.

He saw something I didn't. I'm am going to go back and re-read his prediction from August of 2015 and see if I can understand what he saw and why it was so important. Michael Moore also predicted that Trump was going to win when the newspapers were saying his chances "are approaching zero". And it is obvious, but worth pointing out, that neither Michael Moore nor Scott Adams are Trump supporters.

Yes I love this year. First Brexit now this. Next up Europe please? I'm hoping for the secession movements to really pick up some steam. The US: CA: http://www.yescalifornia.org/ NH: http://nhindependence.org/ TX: https://www.texassecede.com/ VT: http://vermontrepublic.org/ AK: http://www.akip.org/ Canada: Alberta: http://www.republicofalberta.com/ Quebec: http://www.mlnq.org/ Scotland and a bunch of other movements in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

Annnnnnd .... no reaction at all from the markets. Not only was my prediction that Hillary would win wrong, but my prediction that the market would crash on a Trump win was also wrong. That Yogi Berra really knew what he was talking about.

The Democrats made a huge mistake nominating Hillary. First, like you said, she is a mean, condescending, unlikeable person. Second, she is seen as the establishment candidate. There are millions of people who voted for both Obama and Trump. Why do you think that is? I think Obama was seen as the "change" candidate and Trump is seen as the non-establishment candidate who will change things as well. These people want things in Washington to change. Third, she has a history of saying racist and homophobic things. Yes I know she claims she has changed her views, but I put that in the same category as Robert Bird the former KKK leader claiming to no longer be racist. Obama got way more black votes than Hillary did. Fourth, you simply do not win the Presidency of the United States by telling Americans that you are going to take their guns away. Enough said. This was a huge tactical error on her part and I think she just thought that she was so far ahead in the polls that she could get away with it. Turns out she couldn't. Fifth, she is seen as the war candidate. Obama (regardless of what he actually did) was seen as the peace candidate. That made all the difference. I think people want peace and change, and Hillary represented neither. And lastly she is just so obviously power hungry and corrupt that all of the conspiracy theories going around about her seem almost plausible. I don't think people wanted someone like that in the Oval Office. That's my analysis of the results for what it is worth. I think almost anyone else could have beat Trump. He wasn't a good candidate by any means, it is just that Hillary is so awful.

Damn, damn, damn! No I have just under 20% in cash, I was expecting a Hillary victory and a rally as the Trump fears subsided. I was then going to move to 50% cash. If I had even suspected that Trump might win, I'd be holding a lot more cash right now. As the great Yogi Berra said: It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

Me as well. I don't think Trump will be half as bad as most people fear and I think Hillary would have been much worse than most could imagine. He can't do most of the nutty things he said without congress. I don't see the "Let's build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it Act" passing anytime soon. But the president can unilaterally do a lot of damage foreign policy wise and I don't think Trump is the warmongering lunatic that Hillary is. So where Trump is insane he doesn't have unilateral power, but where Hillary is insane she would have if she had been elected. Yes the next president is going to be a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist, bigot, but he won't have the power to roll back civil rights, Hillary would have had the power to implement a no fly zone in Syria and antagonize Russia into war. All and all, I think we dodged a bullet last night. I'm still shocked though, I didn't expect him to win.

I'll try to demonstrate why the theory "if you vote for X it is a vote for Y" is so absurd. Take someone who prefers Johnson, but their 2nd choice would have been Hillary. You can make an ordinal list of such a person's preferences as maybe being: 1) Johnson 2) Hillary 3) Stein 4) Don't vote 5) Trump Your theory is that this person voting for Johnson is really a vote for Trump, because Hillary is who they most prefer out of the two major candidates. My preference list is: 1) Don't vote 2) Johnson 3) Stein 4) Trump 5) Hillary Sure both Hillary and Trump are further down my list than on the lists of many other people, but it is true that I prefer Trump to Hillary, so why doesn't your rule apply to me as well as the person above? You are saying if the person above was forced to choose between the two candidates that person would choose Hillary so a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. Well if I were forced to choose between the two candidates I would choose Trump, so by your theory a vote for Johnson, Stein, or no vote at all is a vote for Hillary. I think the whole theory is nuts, because no one is forced to vote for Hillary or Trump. There are multiple other options (at least 3) and one should vote for his or her prefered option. A vote for Johnson therefore is simply a vote for Johnson.

They're both right. Since America is so polarized Trump supporters are likely to say that to people on the right who would break Trump's way if they don't go 3rd party. Ditto for H. supporters. I'm not voting at all, so considering that if I did vote, I'd vote for Johnson, is my not voting a vote for Trump or a vote for Hillary? I guess that if you are a Hillary supporter a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump, so my not voting for Johnson must be a for Hillary. And if you are a Trump supporter a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary, so my not voting for Johnson must be a vote for Trump. This is all very complicated.

I thought it was kind up there all along. It was in third last time I noticed.

Just thought I'd point out that "Just shoot me. :(" is now in second place!

I know what the polls are saying, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump pulled out a win in New Hampshire. The Trump people seem to be a lot more excited and motivated than the Hillary voters. All weekend I've seen the Trump people out in force at intersections, overpasses, city streets (in Manchester). There was one intersection with about 15 people, mostly women and all looked Asian, waving flags and trump signs. You can't find a Hillary supporter anywhere, yet the polls say she is leading. Weird.

It's a perception thing. There are long lines, because everyone is voting. The last thing they want is the perception that I went to vote and almost no one was there. Here in Colorado they mail you a ballot weeks beforehand, you fill it out and drop it off. Simple. New York was a joke: dense areas had lines around 2-3 blocks. That seems like a much better way of doing it. It would probably prevent fraud too. In Massachusetts (where I lived when I last voted) you wait in a huge line, then give your name and address, they find your name in a book and put a checkmark next to it. I always wondered what would happen if they said, sorry you already voted" and you hadn't. You could have voted multiple times by getting back in line later and giving your neighbor's name or anyone else you know in town, who would know?

I listened to the first few this morning. Excellent!

Almost all good advice anyway. But Blood alliances?

But that's not what Obama meant in context! If we paraphrase, he might have told Einstein: "You did great! Just don't forget those that helped you get there" which is completely different from your "you didn't think of that". It's a bit stretched here because I'm sure Einstein was aware and didn't need to be reminded, but in our society there are many very successful people who do think they are completely "self-made" and don't owe anyone anything, when that isn't actually true. In fact, most of the most successful people on the planet constantly echo that very sentiment about being born in a place that gave them the opportunity to do what they did and talk about giving back (Buffett, Bezos, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, etc). Do you really think that there is anyone who doesn't understand that we are all standing on the backs of those who came before us all the way back to the first humanoid who picked up a stone or a stick and used it as a tool. And that we are helped by our contemporaries working alongside us in complementary industries, as well as motivated and pushed forward by our competitors? No one truly believes that they are completely self made in the way you are implying. Bezos couldn't be dropped on a deserted island without any help and start amazon.com. He knows that. I'm sure he also knows that the government isn't the only one who can connect two computers together. If the internet didn't start out and evolve from the arpanet it would have evolved from something else. I agree with Kevin Kelly that certain technologies are inevitable and will tend to show up one way or another once all the antecedents are in place. There is nothing special about government, we would still have a global network some number of years after the first two computers where networked together in a lab somewhere, we would still have flat surfaces and bridges to drive on if the government didn't fund these things. In fact we may have had flying cars by now if they didn't. Subsidies and regulations on existing tech tends to lock in existing technologies and slow change and innovation. I have no problem giving back as long as it is voluntary. When someone like Obama says anything about giving back he is using it euphemistically to mean being taken from.

I think so. I agree with every word that he's written, but he doesn't seem to have read what I have wrote. No one disputes that everything everybody does is built on the accomplishments and infrastructure built by others. My point is that is not the ONLY thing Obama was saying. He was saying all that (which is true) and then implying "thus we have a right to tax the hell out of you." Only he didn't say it like that he used the euphemism "do things together".

Yes I am shifting my opinion as I think about it more. Tell that to Dick Cheney. http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DevilDick.jpg

We don't see a lot of Reuters here in the US it is more of a British thing our newspapers print Associated Press rather than Reuters. I'll try reading more Reuters online and see what I think. I agree with you on Murrow. Bias is a good thing. Pretending you aren't biased is what I don't like.

Who said it diminishes it? Who said it couldn't have happened otherwise? Recognizing that it was built on an existing foundation, without which it wouldn't have happened, is just recognizing reality. Even in a theoretical libertarian dreamworld utopia, people would still be incredibly interconnected and interdependent and nobody's success would happen in a vacuum on any operation more complex than running a small farm. But people distort that statement and pretend that what he meant is that people who build businesses don't deserve credit for them or that they're somehow not theirs. That's not what I'm reading. He might not be a very business-friendly president, but that's still not what he said. He's stating the obvious: Those businesses don't exist without all kinds of other things that others (govt or not) built. Because it is an asinine thing to say. It is like telling Einstein that "you didn't think of that" because he could never have come up with relativity if he lived before Newton. We are all in debt to the guy who invented the wheel, but to tell Ford "you didn't build that" is just a ridiculous thing to say. And saying it to justify theft is beyond ridiculous. Should the family of William Shockley be able to take what they want from me because I make my living designing integrated circuits and I couldn't do that if he hadn't invented the transistor? And go and then tell me "you didn't build that" to justify their thievery? It is nonsense. We all play the deck we are dealt, but we owe nothing but a debt of gratitude to those who came before and paved the way.

It is the same thing, the difference in some cases a matter of degree, not of kind. Also comparing CNN news to Hannity or O'Reilly isn't fair. Those two would be the first to admit that they are conservatives on the far right and that their shows are biased as such. But compare the CNN news reporting to the Fox News news reporting and you will find they generally report on the same stories only one from the left and one from the right. Are you going to tell me that Chris Wallace isn't a liberal and that you can't tell by the phrases he uses and the expression on his face as he talks about certain things? It may be hard to notice when you agree with him, but he is coming from a left wing point of view. Just look at the post about Biden from me above, do you deny that he got a pass from the media where Dan Quayle did not? If he were a Republican you would hear about him endlessly, but because he's a Democrat they ignore him and hope no one notices. Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing the bias of any news source. I don't think it is possible to be unbiased. But for the most part Fox News is open about its bias and the rest of them claim to have none which is BS. Again this is hard to see when it coincides completely with your own point of view. All of these news outlets Fox and CNN alike are biased in favor of the United States in apposed to the Middle East for example, but none of them admit as much. If you were to see a newscast in Iran or Russia you would notice the bias, but in the US you do not see it (unless you are on the left and you watch Foxnews).

Not sure if you guys know this in Canada but Fox news is not considered a legitimate news outlet here. Its more of an entertainment channel featuring blondes who passes Ailes 'sniff' test. They pride themselves on high ratings but since they are the only ones who peddles these crackpot theories , this is the channel of choice for deplorables. I can't wait for Trump to launch his own. That'll be the race to the bottom. While I agree 100%, what I've always found hilarious is that those on the left think that CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, etc, are any less biased than Fox News is. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source. If you think you are watching/reading unbiased news it simply means that you share the same biases as the source.

I know you're just having fun with the title of the podcast, but I hear that line often enough that I looked it up in context, and I think it's one of those memes that are actually pretty clearly not what the person meant and is used to ascribe them beliefs that they don't have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that It's pretty clear to me it's exactly what he meant. Analyze what he's saying. You worked hard- that doesn't justify your success because a lot of people work hard and don't attain success. You were successful because someone else paid for the roads you used. You were successful because you had a good teacher. You were successful because of the founding fathers. You were successful because the government helped create the internet. In essence, you are not fully responsible for your success. Now, who here exactly is he rebutting? No one believe that businesses don't have employees. No one believes that children don't rely on teachers. No one thinks fighting fires ought to be done by a single individual. No one who says, I built my business, thinks that no one else was involved. When someone says they built their business, what they mean is that they, as an individual, knowingly took the actions necessary to achieve their success. Obama is switching the idea of 'responsibility' from meaning under ones control to entirely of ones making. The result is to undercut those who believe they deserve the fruits of their success. The political position this justifies is obvious. You think you deserve that $20 you made selling lemonade? Well, not completely. Someone else invented lemonade. I think you're interpreting it wrong. He's saying that Jeff Bezos can't build Amazon if the postal service and the internet don't exist. So you might be doing amazing things, and they are necessary for success (even if they don't guarantee it), but they are not sufficient, so it makes sense to give back to the system/country that helped you be successful. People fixate on the sentence that stops and then switches back to another idea, but what he's really saying is, you didn't build the bridges and roads and that kind of stuff, the platform on which everything else rests. Without police and military to guarantee your security, without a judicial system and strong institutions that defend property and enforce contracts, without clean water and electricity, etc.. A lot of things simply don't happen even if you're Elon Musk. But what he is implying is that those things or very similar things couldn't have been built any other way and wouldn't exist otherwise. Much like a 18th century cotton farmer telling you to thank slavery for your clothing. We all build on what already exists. That doesn't diminish someone's accomplishments.

Any idea of the Android equivalent of Overcast?? From the guy who wrote Overcast here. "I have no plans to support Android — if you want an Android app, I hear Pocket Casts blows away everything else available, and they’re nice guys." Here is Pocket Casts. It looks like it has the same type of feature which removes the silence between words to speed up the playback. I just got this from a websearch, so I don't know if it works as well as Overcast does.