Politics And Current Events

[columbia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mig9ub_4i8

Stay on the porch, cupcake.

[ExPatriatePen]

The Chinese markets didn't agree with me in early June either. Ask @columbia how that one turned out.

Tomas you of all people should know the teachings of Benjamin Graham. His views on the vagarities of markets have been proven correct time after time after time.

It is a tight race between "Crazy Eight" and skullman and the Chinese markets and columbia in the EPP grudge sweepstakes.

And yet they never learn...

[PFiDC]

The Daily Mail certainly knows a thing or two about primitive, narrow-minded viewpoints.

Accepting hundreds of thousands of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries means importing their horribly misogynistic and bigoted views, and the consequences that come with it. You cannot have one without the other.

You cannot have muslims without "misogynistic and bigoted views, and the consequences that come with it" or you cannot have hundreds of thousands of muslims without "misogynistic and bigoted views, and the consequences that come with it"?

[Troy Loney]

The Daily Mail certainly knows a thing or two about primitive, narrow-minded viewpoints.

Accepting hundreds of thousands of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries means importing their horribly misogynistic and bigoted views, and the consequences that come with it. You cannot have one without the other.

I don't know, sounds like they'd fit in pretty well..hah

[shafnutz05]

You cannot have muslims without "misogynistic and bigoted views, and the consequences that come with it" or you cannot have hundreds of thousands of muslims without "misogynistic and bigoted views, and the consequences that come with it"?

I mean, oppression and abuse of women is pretty rampant throughout the M.E. I couldn't put an exact percentage on it, but let's just say a very large portion of Islamic men hold pretty distressing views on gender equality, among other things. It goes back to the numbers game.....if 8% of these immigrants are sympathetic to ISIS/terrorists, that piece of the pie only gets bigger and bigger as you bring in more people.

[PFiDC]

So what should be done with these people who no longer have a home? If, and let's be conservative, 50% are ISIS and the other 50% are legit refugees just looking for safety and a life outside of war, what do we do with them?

[Tomas]

So the unelectable ones?

Surprised you added Rubio to that list considering some of your comments.

Bush is unelectable? That Bush that as of today is the clear favorite on election trading exchanges?

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016repnomination

Jeb is absolutely unelectable. Not with respect to the GOP nomination, but there's no way he'd ever win the general election, the Bush name is just too much of a millstone.

I don't think markets agree with you. I'm too lazy to check anything other than Betfair, but there (going with bid/ask averages):

Bush nomination trades at 3.025 (33.06% chance of victory): https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politi ... .107664938
Republican win trades at 2.4 (41.67% chance of victory): https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politi ... .116006120

So, somebody with these stats should have 41.67%*33.06% = 13.77% chance of being the president.

Bush as President, meanwhile, trades at 7.1, i.e. 14.08% chance of victory (https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politi ... .107373419 ). Very close to the 13.77% implied probability (in fact, even slightly higher - suggesting it is NOT Bush who negatively affects the 41.67% chance of Republican victory. The Republican win likelihood that gives the 33.06% likely nominee 14.08% shot at the President is actually 42.6%).

The Chinese markets didn't agree with me in early June either. Ask @columbia how that one turned out.

Tomas you of all people should know the teachings of Benjamin Graham. His views on the vagarities of markets have been proven correct time after time after time.

I am very happy that your own expertise allowed you to beat the market price consensus in case of Chinese markets. So I very much hope that since you are sure that markets inflate Bush chances of becoming the President, you are putting a lot of money against Republicans on Iowa Electronic Markets (while you'd have a lot of obstacles investing on Betfair, IEM are open to all US citizens). This will:

A) make you very, very rich, with the added benefit of
B) driving IEM prices toward the true (low) chances of Republican victory.

(Though given how much you trashed @columbia about China lately, I bet you already count your $MMs you made on the Chinese mispricing.)

[Factorial]

[shafnutz05]

So what should be done with these people who no longer have a home? If, and let's be conservative, 50% are ISIS and the other 50% are legit refugees just looking for safety and a life outside of war, what do we do with them?

Therein lies the rub, eh? It's an extremely untenable situation. I can't say that I know the answer, but I feel like there has to be *some* plan in place to aggressively assimilate these refugees. What is far more likely to happen is that they are going to end up in extremely segregated neighborhoods (like London's East End, for instance), that essentially become their own, self-policing communities. And, of course, become a hotbed for extremism.

[slappybrown]

[shafnutz05]

Answer the question, slick.

[PFiDC]

So what should be done with these people who no longer have a home? If, and let's be conservative, 50% are ISIS and the other 50% are legit refugees just looking for safety and a life outside of war, what do we do with them?

Therein lies the rub, eh? It's an extremely untenable situation. I can't say that I know the answer, but I feel like there has to be *some* plan in place to aggressively assimilate these refugees. What is far more likely to happen is that they are going to end up in extremely segregated neighborhoods (like London's East End, for instance), that essentially become their own, self-policing communities. And, of course, become a hotbed for extremism.

I don't disagree with you at all regarding the negative outcome.

[ExPatriatePen]

Bush is unelectable? That Bush that as of today is the clear favorite on election trading exchanges?

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016repnomination

Jeb is absolutely unelectable. Not with respect to the GOP nomination, but there's no way he'd ever win the general election, the Bush name is just too much of a millstone.

I don't think markets agree with you. I'm too lazy to check anything other than Betfair, but there (going with bid/ask averages):

Bush nomination trades at 3.025 (33.06% chance of victory): https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politi ... .107664938
Republican win trades at 2.4 (41.67% chance of victory): https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politi ... .116006120

So, somebody with these stats should have 41.67%*33.06% = 13.77% chance of being the president.

Bush as President, meanwhile, trades at 7.1, i.e. 14.08% chance of victory (https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politi ... .107373419 ). Very close to the 13.77% implied probability (in fact, even slightly higher - suggesting it is NOT Bush who negatively affects the 41.67% chance of Republican victory. The Republican win likelihood that gives the 33.06% likely nominee 14.08% shot at the President is actually 42.6%).

The Chinese markets didn't agree with me in early June either. Ask @columbia how that one turned out.

Tomas you of all people should know the teachings of Benjamin Graham. His views on the vagarities of markets have been proven correct time after time after time.

I am very happy that your own expertise allowed you to beat the market price consensus in case of Chinese markets.

What do you attribute it to? It was a highly contrarian position that I took a very public stance on. No one else was predicting it.

But whatever.

So I very much hope that since you are sure that markets inflate Bush chances of becoming the President, you are putting a lot of money against Republicans on Iowa Electronic Markets (while you'd have a lot of obstacles investing on Betfair, IEM are open to all US citizens). This will:

A) make you very, very rich, with the added benefit of
B) driving IEM prices toward the true (low) chances of Republican victory.

(Though given how much you trashed @columbia about China lately, I bet you already count your $MMs you made on the Chinese mispricing.)

Your misdirection is humorous. You avoid the issue. Jeb hasn't had to defend the Bush name against much more than token forays. If he were to win the GOP nomination the Dems and the LameStream media will come after him with both barrels.

We're only eight years remove from "anyone but Bush" no way in hell does America do a 180 that quickly.

But we'll see. We'll see.

[Troy Loney]

And a lot of people on the right believe that the Clinton's have murdered people. So if the inevitable establishment candidates get the nominations, both sides will be voting against Bush/Clinton and not for a candidate.

I don't think there was any misdirection in the post, Tomas is just citing the betting lines.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

LameStream media

using this term unironically should be a federal offense

[columbia]

And a lot of people on the right believe that the Clinton's have murdered people.

Correct:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19&p=80371&hilit=Foster#p80371

[ExPatriatePen]

And a lot of people on the right believe that the Clinton's have murdered people.

Correct:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19&p=80371&hilit=Foster#p80371

And here i thought he was talking about Benghazi - It works either way I guess.

[Troy Loney]

Benghazi just confirms the original suspicions.

[ExPatriatePen]

I don't think there was any misdirection in the post, Tomas is just citing the betting lines.

I was speaking of the editorial comments that accompanied the lines.

Lines are lines. And markets are markets. Very seldom do they wind up being a "push". Sometimes they're wildly inaccurate.
People recite them is though they're gospel. And time after time we see that the general consensus is WRONG. (13-9)

**** happens.

[tifosi77]

We're only eight years remove from "anyone but Bush" no way in hell does America do a 180 that quickly.

Depending on which poll you look at, when GHWB caved on the no-new-taxes pledge, he had an approval rating in the high 70s. Granted, that was closer to a 2-year turn, and in that time the economy went into a recession. But such reversals of fortune are not unprecedented.

Let's face it: Both the presumptive nominees, regardless of current polling, are two people with mountains of personal baggage.

[ExPatriatePen]

We're only eight years remove from "anyone but Bush" no way in hell does America do a 180 that quickly.

Depending on which poll you look at, when GHWB caved on the no-new-taxes pledge, he had an approval rating in the high 70s. Granted, that was closer to a 2-year turn, and in that time the economy went into a recession. But such reversals of fortune are not unprecedented.

Let's face it: Both the presumptive nominees, regardless of current polling, are two people with mountains of personal baggage.

Be honest Tif... there's a hell of a difference between how fast the electorate can sour on a candidate, as opposed to how fast they'll warm up to an already known and established entity. (Understood that the electorate can flock to the new "shiny Penny" like they did with Obama, but he wasn't a well known and established entity.)

[columbia]

[stillgeezer]

John Baner stepping down as House speaker at the end of next month.

I think he just waited to stare at the Pope's butt yesterday.

He's had an impossible job over the last few years with the radicals in the white house.

Fixed

[tifosi77]

We're only eight years remove from "anyone but Bush" no way in hell does America do a 180 that quickly.

Depending on which poll you look at, when GHWB caved on the no-new-taxes pledge, he had an approval rating in the high 70s. Granted, that was closer to a 2-year turn, and in that time the economy went into a recession. But such reversals of fortune are not unprecedented.

Let's face it: Both the presumptive nominees, regardless of current polling, are two people with mountains of personal baggage.

Be honest Tif... there's a hell of a difference between how fast the electorate can sour on a candidate, as opposed to how fast they'll warm up to an already known and established entity. (Understood that the electorate can flock to the new "shiny Penny" like they did with Obama, but he wasn't a well known and established entity.)

I won't deny that, but we're not talking about an existing office holder. We're talking about a name. That's changes the metric, altho JEB doesn't seem to be doing himself any favors by surrounding himself with the same assclowns that got us into Iraq.

[Gaucho]

Nice.