/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

MrAlphonzo wrote: I doubt that the income from countries that will pay the US for protection will be able to cover the loss. Seeing as how, globally, countries are already moving to become more independent from the US. Making them pay for protection? That'll just make them try that even harder.

Those countries can't be "independent", they can only be in another power's sphere of influence. And which power are they gonna run to? Russia and US will just double tag them, Russia threatens and US offers protection, for a hefty charge of course, and the other way around for middle eastern countries. It will be like the mob racketeering but on a global scale. As a European, that's the thing that scares me most about the Trump presidency

MrAlphonzo wrote:

TheColdTurtle wrote:(You)

I don't get it.

It implies that you are posting just to get replies, baiting, if you will
And that it was pathetic and/or easy enough to see through that that you get a pity reply

My prediction, since nobody asked for that either:
There will be a wall. But it's going to just be a small one or otherwise mostly pointless, symbolism though
There will be immigration reduction, but not as much as his voters wanted. No deportations of legal citizens either
Obamacare is probably going to be fine, might be refitted to be even more like European systems though. Possibly this could be a net positive for everyone
Russia isn't going to do shit in Europe, but they're going to fuck about the middle east a bit and maybe get closer to China again. Maybe if the current political situation continues Russia might get a whole lot of friends in Europe, but never any real power
Economy and stock market will cry, tank, and blame Trump for protectionistic policies. Won't be a real effect on most people unless you import literally everything you use from other countries
But on that note, Trump will gain international love and good favour when he sinks TPP and similar treaties
And likely no Californian seccession either

Then unless he fucked up hard he's going to get reelected, and after 8 years it's back to the usual

Would Califoria succeeding really be a bad thing?

I guess Hollywood brings in a lot of money but other than that...?
I suppose a lot of tech giants are HQed there too.

Guarantees that the Democrats will never win the electoral college again.

Malkevin wrote:Would Califoria succeeding really be a bad thing?

I guess Hollywood brings in a lot of money but other than that...?
I suppose a lot of tech giants are HQed there too.

California alone as an independent nation would have a bigger economy than France. Losing literally 10% of your GDP and a big league farming region would be a major blow to the rest of the country. That's not even getting into the key ports that see a lot of international traffic every day and military bases that are vital to projecting naval forces into the Pacific.

Calexit is just a meme though, it's not going to happen unless Trump does something monumentally stupid. Pulling federal funding over sanctuary cities might do it but even then I expect a compromise to be worked out.

California can't function without the rest of the united states supporting it. If they leave it will be fun to watch them burn to death within a year when we stop sending half the countries firefighters to save them from their yearly holocaust.

MisterPerson wrote:

Malkevin wrote:Would Califoria succeeding really be a bad thing?

I guess Hollywood brings in a lot of money but other than that...?
I suppose a lot of tech giants are HQed there too.

California alone as an independent nation would have a bigger economy than France. Losing literally 10% of your GDP and a big league farming region would be a major blow to the rest of the country. That's not even getting into the key ports that see a lot of international traffic every day and military bases that are vital to projecting naval forces into the Pacific.

Calexit is just a meme though, it's not going to happen unless Trump does something monumentally stupid. Pulling federal funding over sanctuary cities might do it but even then I expect a compromise to be worked out.

"Would losing 10% of the GDP and almost an entire coast really be that bad" is a pretty silly question yeah. Not to mention the legal precedent of letting states leave would be disastrous for US stability.

Who said anything about letting them leave? There would be army guys down there saying no you can't, and the fluorescent plumed demoparrots will start screeching and chanting oppression and MUH STATES RIGHTS, just like they did when they wanted to secede because she Lincoln said they couldn't keep black people as slaves.

I want to give the Trump presidency the benefit of the doubt but it seems like he is surrounding himself with some shitty people which does not inspire confidence

I don't like them either. I think he might just be insulating himself with dinguses so he can point a blame.

Grazyn wrote:

MrAlphonzo wrote: I doubt that the income from countries that will pay the US for protection will be able to cover the loss. Seeing as how, globally, countries are already moving to become more independent from the US. Making them pay for protection? That'll just make them try that even harder.

Those countries can't be "independent", they can only be in another power's sphere of influence. And which power are they gonna run to? Russia and US will just double tag them, Russia threatens and US offers protection, for a hefty charge of course, and the other way around for middle eastern countries. It will be like the mob racketeering but on a global scale. As a European, that's the thing that scares me most about the Trump presidency

Desperate times call for desperate measures. China might want to increase its sphere of influence, and a lot of countries will be up for grabs.

Kor wrote:

MisterPerson wrote:

Malkevin wrote:Would Califoria succeeding really be a bad thing?

I guess Hollywood brings in a lot of money but other than that...?
I suppose a lot of tech giants are HQed there too.

California alone as an independent nation would have a bigger economy than France. Losing literally 10% of your GDP and a big league farming region would be a major blow to the rest of the country. That's not even getting into the key ports that see a lot of international traffic every day and military bases that are vital to projecting naval forces into the Pacific.

Calexit is just a meme though, it's not going to happen unless Trump does something monumentally stupid. Pulling federal funding over sanctuary cities might do it but even then I expect a compromise to be worked out.

"Would losing 10% of the GDP and almost an entire coast really be that bad" is a pretty silly question yeah. Not to mention the legal precedent of letting states leave would be disastrous for US stability.

Lincoln thought the same.

MrAlphonzo wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

MrAlphonzo wrote: I doubt that the income from countries that will pay the US for protection will be able to cover the loss. Seeing as how, globally, countries are already moving to become more independent from the US. Making them pay for protection? That'll just make them try that even harder.

Those countries can't be "independent", they can only be in another power's sphere of influence. And which power are they gonna run to? Russia and US will just double tag them, Russia threatens and US offers protection, for a hefty charge of course, and the other way around for middle eastern countries. It will be like the mob racketeering but on a global scale. As a European, that's the thing that scares me most about the Trump presidency

Desperate times call for desperate measures. China might want to increase its sphere of influence, and a lot of countries will be up for grabs.

China has been doing that for ages now, through most of Asia and large sections of Africa too
And they are so awful to the locals that African nations have said they prefered being european colonies over Chinese influence

This is nothing new, every time they tried to actually expand their territory they were told to stop that by (Mostly asian) countries asking the US or Russia for protection
And almost every time did one of those two tell China to get fucked
And China backed off but they never actually gave up any claims, no matter how small. Trump already mentioned going for a strong, hard approach to the whole 'China' issue, so I would assume that includes helping the local nations militarily if they need it
Sure would suck for everyone in Asia if he didn't

As for California, I'd bet on it that they'd first prop up their economy with debt, then in 30 or so years they'll be like Greece and in too much debt to ever get out of it.

XSI wrote:

MrAlphonzo wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

MrAlphonzo wrote: I doubt that the income from countries that will pay the US for protection will be able to cover the loss. Seeing as how, globally, countries are already moving to become more independent from the US. Making them pay for protection? That'll just make them try that even harder.

Those countries can't be "independent", they can only be in another power's sphere of influence. And which power are they gonna run to? Russia and US will just double tag them, Russia threatens and US offers protection, for a hefty charge of course, and the other way around for middle eastern countries. It will be like the mob racketeering but on a global scale. As a European, that's the thing that scares me most about the Trump presidency

Desperate times call for desperate measures. China might want to increase its sphere of influence, and a lot of countries will be up for grabs.

China has been doing that for ages now, through most of Asia and large sections of Africa too
And they are so awful to the locals that African nations have said they prefered being european colonies over Chinese influence

This is nothing new, every time they tried to actually expand their territory they were told to stop that by (Mostly asian) countries asking the US or Russia for protection
And almost every time did one of those two tell China to get fucked
And China backed off but they never actually gave up any claims, no matter how small. Trump already mentioned going for a strong, hard approach to the whole 'China' issue, so I would assume that includes helping the local nations militarily if they need it
Sure would suck for everyone in Asia if he didn't

As for California, I'd bet on it that they'd first prop up their economy with debt, then in 30 or so years they'll be like Greece and in too much debt to ever get out of it.

Then again, this is if the countries choose not to be independent from one of the superpowers in the first place. You can't bully the entire planet and just expect them to sit there and take it. Perhaps NATO might actually do something worthwhile, or a organization consisting of all the countries being bullied by the US and Russia will be formed. There will be resistance, you can't hold the entire world hostage forever.

yes you can, because the "world" (independent countries) are usually surrounded by bullies.

you can "bully" them by keeping things quiet, and in return you get nice contracts for your aerospace/defense corporations. it may eventually fall apart for the states, for a variety of reasons; but it won't be because the model doesn't work, and it won't end with the states anyway; it will just be somebody else.

the united states' model for world hegemony is basically the same model as a huge number of countries' plan for military hegemony across the sweep of world history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38126222

Polls say Le Penn's Front National will be beaten by the french conservative party.


I'm going to laugh my arse off if the polls win a hat trick of being wrong.

really shite poll just for the small number.

That's not how sample sizes work. 6k is actually a pretty big number for a poll.

That said polls got Brexit and Trump wrong so obviously something isn't working very well with current political polling methodology.

Kor wrote:

really shite poll just for the small number.

That's not how sample sizes work. 6k is actually a pretty big number for a poll.

That said polls got Brexit and Trump wrong so obviously something isn't working very well with current political polling methodology.

people can't publically admit who they actually want to vote for without being branded racist or sexist or whatever

oranges wrote:

Kor wrote:

really shite poll just for the small number.

That's not how sample sizes work. 6k is actually a pretty big number for a poll.

That said polls got Brexit and Trump wrong so obviously something isn't working very well with current political polling methodology.

people can't publically admit who they actually want to vote for without being branded racist or sexist or whatever

And they can't admit to agreeing with one policy without being branded those things over their candidate's other policies, so you never even get the opportunity to say "okay, so they don't actually give a shit about the racial policies one way or another, so would you vote for a candidate that had that policy you agree with without all the racist baggage?"
But no, just call them all racists 'cause that's sure to win 'em over

CosmicScientist wrote:Isn't six thousand actually small for an election poll for France?

The issue isn't the size of the sample but rather where and how they are taken.

If you've just set up a stall in a supermarket under a banner of "Answer a few simple questions to win an ipad" or asking random passersby in a city centre if they've got a few moments to answer a few questions... the only people that are going to answer are the ones with too much time on their hands.

CosmicScientist wrote:I don't know how Murica did its polls though.

Long story short, for Trump polls they did the following, in roughly that ratio:

Take 300 registered democrats
100 independents
and 100 registered conservatives for a poll of 500 people.

Then they declared that Hillary was much more popular than Trump because that's what their polling data said.
It was very silly

I've not looked at French polls yet, so not a clue how that stuff goes

Is it true what they say about the French?

That they have a strikingly low obesity rate compared to anglophone countries despite having things like "literally deep-fry a cheesewheel and serve it with fries" as a common dish served in small town cafes?

Can confirm.

What the fuck do you even call that.

It's just "camembert frite". No need to be complicated about it.

Just.. take a wheel of camembert and fry it. Job done.

>low obesity rate

The coders must be French because they deny us fatsprites

Screemonster wrote:That they have a strikingly low obesity rate compared to anglophone countries despite having things like "literally deep-fry a cheesewheel and serve it with fries" as a common dish served in small town cafes?

Can confirm.

Meh, that's tame. Italians still beat them with lower obesity rate even with this monster dish made of fried cheese, potatoes and butter, usually served with boiled cornmeal on the side, which is a staple in the northern areas.

Oh my god those both look amazingly delicious

I want them

Grazyn wrote: Meh, that's tame. Italians still beat them with lower obesity rate even with this monster dish made of fried cheese, potatoes and butter, usually served with boiled cornmeal on the side, which is a staple in the northern areas.

Spoiler:

Oh niiice. Reminds me of dauphinoise potatoes but even more over-the-top.

CosmicScientist wrote:Isn't six thousand actually small for an election poll for France?

No. Most polls only use a couple hundred or a thousand people at most, and this is usually plenty to be accurate. The idea is to get a good representation of what the rest of the people probably think, not to ask every single person.

You'll probably find more in depth/better explanations on how polling places determine sample sizes from google than from me though.

The trick is getting a diverse sample, and not just asking people who happen to be in a particular town centre on a tuesday afternoon or whatever.

There's a joke in the UK that tory voters aren't shy, they're just out at work when the pollsters knock on the door.

Well yeah, if they're asking the wrong people or the people are afraid to answer truthfully the data is going to be garbage, but asking even more people at that point probably won't help much.

18 year old sonalian Muslim immigrant runs people down and attacks people with a butcher knife at Ohio state. Waiting on shitlibs to spin it that po teenage child innocent Muslim got shot by the police cuz he was scared of a trump presidency RECOUNT NOOOOOOW

Muslims are fucking cowards. They flee their countries not because of violence, but because they're afraid if they try to victimize people there there's a greater chance they'll end up shot and their family punished for their crime.

I think Syrians and other muslims from literal war zones are not fleeing for that reason SAC

Politics turns normally reasonable people into meme machines.
SAC is no exception.

Sac is a meme machine but he's not wrong

If these people actually fucking wanted to get away from fucking violence and war zones they would not feel the fucking need to try to kill eleven absolute fucking strangers because "AMERICA OUT OF ISLAMIC UMMA REEEEE"

I dont care how many hijab-garbed glasses wearing soft-spoken college girls you put on the news saying not all Muslims, the fact of the fucking matter is an 18 year old was fucking pissed off enough about the world he tried to fucking ice strangers in the name of his faith and everyone's playing the semantics game of not calling him a terrorist so some fucking Starbuck'd Up Moderate Muslim Teen doesn't pinch the bridge of her nose and go "Ugh can you not?" If Dylan "all niggers must die" roof is a terrorist then Ali Abdul Muhammed "all Americans must die" Shawarma is too, regardless if a bunch of fucking "secularists" get their panties in a fucking bunch and bitch they're going to get targeted for it. Maybe if their community fucking policed their own and taught their fucking children violence is not how you endear yourself to the population they wouldn't fucking be targeted. For the past 15 years of my fucking life I have been acutely aware that there are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people targeting me for death because of the country I was born in and the actions of people in that country I have no control over. Get the fuck over someone calling a sihk a camel jockey because of his hat and teach the young men and women in your fucking community that this is not okay. Fuck you.

Not saying that every muslim on the run is a killer but you need to be a special kind of fucked up in order to try and murder eleven fucking strangers with a goddamn knife

Not really.
Manipulation and indoctrination are amazingly easy to accomplish. Some of humanity's basic abilities and instincts can be abused very easily.

Wait was this guy involved with some sort of terrorist group or something? I have not heard anything about that

He explicitly mentioned being a lone wolf and made references to speeches by an extremist cleric according to the sources I have read

How did he manage to stab 11? Doesnt someone pull a gun after two or three?

11 people counts those he hit with the car, he was shot in under two minutes.

Two minutes too late.

[youtube]FqnNvK4LYJk[/youtube]

I lolled

Manslaughter if the jury doesn't believe the eye witnesses saying he hit some folks with a car then jumped out with a fukken knife and started chasing people.

Ok can we just fucking agree here it would be nice if he was fucking shot or arrested or whatever before anyone got hurt or are you going to keep shifting the goalposts

XSI wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:I don't know how Murica did its polls though.

Long story short, for Trump polls they did the following, in roughly that ratio:

Take 300 registered democrats
100 independents
and 100 registered conservatives for a poll of 500 people.

Then they declared that Hillary was much more popular than Trump because that's what their polling data said.
It was very silly

I've not looked at French polls yet, so not a clue how that stuff goes

This is wrong on so many levels.

First off, that's not how polling works and that's specifically not how error gets introduced from an overreprenstation of a demographic in the electorate. You have to skew your raw data by weighing the samples. You might poll 300 democrats, sure, but then you assign their votes a lesser weight to fit a model of the entire electorate. If you expect 20,000 dems and 10,000 republicans and survey 200 dems and 200 republicans, you give each republican half weight at the end. Democrats were overweighted vs the final turnout, yes, but that has nothing to do with the original samples.

Second, the polls weren't even that off. Final poll numbers were like Hillary 3% or so for most polls with a few saying 4. Final total? 1.6. That's roughly 2 or 3 percentage points, which is not only within the margin of error of most of the polls, that's even more accurate than 2012. That USC/LA Times tracking poll a lot of people like to parade around was one of the least accurate at +3 Trump. That's an error of almost 5%.

Third, you're conflating the results the pollsters were giving (Hillary has a slight lead) with what the mass media was reporting (Hillary is GUARANTEED to win). Obviously the latter was stupid and you're correct to call those places on their shit. But don't blame the pollsters for having the right data when it was the media spinning a false narrative.

Forth, you're spinning this off like all the pollsters got together and colluded for a dem win in a vast conspiracy which is complete horseshit. They were showing a pretty good spread most of the way through and then in the last week they all came together at the end so each one seemed like less of an outlier. It's a common form of error called herding.

You're a good dude mr. Person

Lies and statistics
Same thing, really

It was mostly the media interpreting things wrong. You may say polls are not that much off, but many polls were reported as if Texas would be a battleground state and Trump had no chance even at the most favourable of error margins in many swing states. Regardless of intent, thanks to the media many have lost faith in these polls. Just like with Brexit. Blame the tool when the user makes a mistake

I could go into detail with things, but yeah. You are correct on pretty much all of that. It is within the margins of many polls, and the media pretty much decided to fuck it all up.

Oversampling things is a legit way to find out, for example, how a minority feels about it by oversampling them. Or one could oversample to make it more closely fit the population(Such as a california poll oversampling democrats. It makes sense not to 1:1 them in places where they aren't present 1:1. But you can't take such a poll as being representative of the whole country like the media was doing in places)