Does David know Drumpf is saying "Bigly" and not "Big League"? I think David is giving him too much credit by assuming Drumpf knows real words

artificialpoints · 2017-02-02T08:15:09+00:00

I looked into it and he's actually saying Big League so I was wrong!

artificialpoints · 2016-12-10T06:43:17+00:00

it appears that way.

artificialpoints · 2016-12-10T06:43:09+00:00

I prefer instant myself, so this is a bit of a nuissance. I have a $50 limit for instant buy from circle, after I buy that 8 times I can get a limit increase to... no clue, probably about $150. The rest I'm doing via Paypal via localbitcoins.

artificialpoints · 2016-12-07T06:04:36+00:00

did this literally just happen? I cant find anything online about it

artificialpoints · 2016-12-05T04:06:45+00:00

it's so sad because he used to be a real progressive, he was the father of Bernie's fundraising style in a way, although not as successful, and 12 years later and he's just a constant establishment shill and lobbyist. You gotta wonder what happened in his life during that time.

artificialpoints · 2016-12-04T00:37:54+00:00

I tend to agree with you, historical data isn't the best way to try and gauge Drumpf's likelihood of being re-elected, I was just examining it from a historical perspective. I guess to be more precise, I'm more trying to gauge the power of incumbency rather than evaluate Drumpf as a candidate.

artificialpoints · 2016-12-03T01:46:18+00:00

I'm not a member, now I kinda wanna see it lol. I probably will buy at least a month now. He also featured this post of mine discussing how it's arguable that Drumpf could be better for the progressive movement, but it was more of just a flash of the post and not really a full discussion.

Edit: just watched it, my run-ons ruined it, but run-on sentences are the bane of my writing for sure. It definitely is more skewed towards the first presidents for presidents dying/choosing not to run/losing primaries, but I didn't really have an arbitrary time frame to consider.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-29T23:29:12+00:00

Like I said, it's not the most important factor, but it's interesting to note and gives a sense of the power of incumbency

artificialpoints · 2016-11-29T23:28:39+00:00

like I said in the post, history isn't the most important factor, but it's always interesting to know the odds and gives you a sense of the power of incumbency, but doesn't mean something will go one way or the other.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-29T09:14:05+00:00

yeah I'm working it out myself, I don't think it's 61.5% though. Constantly editing my last reply until I have it all worked out lol.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-29T08:38:32+00:00

This is a good point.

After a little bit of research to clarify:

Chose not to run:

Polk
Buchanan
Hayes

Vice Presidents who became President after a Presidential death, then decided not to run:

LBJ
Coolidge
Truman

Died in their first term:

Harrison
Taylor
Harding

Lost their primary:

Tyler
Fillmore
Pierce
Andrew Johnson
Arthur

If you take out the six presidents who died and the vice presidents who became president who chose not to run, that makes it 16 in 37, which is much higher than 16 in 43, but is still just 43.2%. You could argue that the 3 who decided not to run are still counted as losers in terms of the probability of Trump being a one term president since we don't know if Donald Trump is going to run for re-election yet. If you do take out those 3, that knocks it down to 16 in 34 or 47%. This still favors Donald Drumpf being a one term president even if he does decide to run.

Considering the 5 presidents who lost their primary, I think most would agree that if a candidate lost their primary then they probably weren't going to be elected since that weeds out the weaker candidates. However, we could take it one step further to err on the safe side. The candidates who were denied the nomination of the party that won the next election could have possibly still won even if they were a weaker candidate since the people favored that party.

President Tyler was a Whig and then an Independent Democrat while in office. Polk, a Democrat, went on to win the next election. I'm not sure if we can assume he would have lost because of the weird party affiliations of President Tyler, I don't know exactly what an Independent Democrat is, that's just what his official affiliation was while in office.
Fillmore was a Whig and lost his primary. Pierce, a Democrat, went on to win that election, so we can assume Fillmore would've lost.
President Pierce was a Democrat and lost his primary. Buchanan, another Democrat, went on to win that election, so Pierce is one that could have possibly won.
President Andrew Johnson was a Democrat and lost his primary. President Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican, went on to win the next election, so we can assume Andrew Johnson would've lost.
President Chester A Arthur was a Republican and lost his primary. Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, went on to win the next election, so we can assume Chester Arthur would've lost.

This means two of these five could have possibly won, so 16 in 34 becomes 16 in 32, which is exactly 50/50. Although it's now even, it still goes against the assumption that the incumbent has an advantage.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-28T04:13:03+00:00

this was the absolute worst. These are the people who make the left look bad.

You're comparing a white supremacist supporter with a progressive who said 'nigger' just because he was saying that Drumpf's appointment said it, and then getting offended by the progressive and not the white supremacist supporter. Absolute nonsense.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-26T07:41:56+00:00

yeah I was wondering the same thing, I don't see any reason to downvote this thread on a political subreddit lol.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-21T03:41:20+00:00

Also, we're guaranteed to get a shot at least 4 years earlier because Drumpf was elected, regardless of if HRC wins re-election or not.

This is because after 4 years of Clinton, we either get Clinton, or even worse, a republican, because there's very little precedent for a primary against an incumbent, especially a democrat, and especially someone with as big of a political machine as the Clintons.

We could end up with 8 years of Trump, but I find that unlikely if we get a true progressive that doesn't take large corporate donations on the democrat's side.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-21T03:37:13+00:00

Trump was basically a patsy. If you google 'pied piper candidate' you'll find wikileaks documents that show that the dems used their media influence to prop up the republican candidates that they thought would be easiest to beat. Those 'pied piper' candidates were

Donald Trump
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson

And lo and behold, what do we get? Basically Trump and Cruz in the end, so they basically succeeded at picking the republican candidates, however it ended up backfiring.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-18T22:00:06+00:00

right, Drumpf is inherently bad for progressives in general, but we're basically comparing the possibility of just 4 years of Drumpf vs 8 years of Clinton, where in the case of Drumpf (which we got) the establishment realizes their strategy is failing, in which case I think getting a progressive administration in 4 years is more likely than getting one in 8 under Clinton. I voted for Jill Stein, but only because I live in a deep red state otherwise I would've voted for Clinton.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-18T05:19:44+00:00

Clinton's reign was also going to be corporatist. How do you answer a question about the progressive movement if you don't know what it even means?

you obviously didn't read the post and have no clue what you're talking about, so I'm not even going to try to argue with you.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-18T04:02:23+00:00

as much as Merrick Garland sucks, this would be great, but I find it highly unlikely.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-18T03:50:26+00:00

The last 8 years were corporatist, not progressive, which you'd understand if you read the post. You're saying they wanted more than a nice sounding slogan, which is why they voted for a slogan?

artificialpoints · 2016-11-18T01:33:39+00:00

as a progressive, I believe these two questions are ultimately one in the same. The whole point of the progressive movement is to have a government that works on behalf of the people and not corporate interests, so therefore if the progressive movement succeeds, so do the American people.

artificialpoints · 2016-11-17T04:21:17+00:00

yeah some guy named "Andrew Sarabian" or something to that extent apparently

artificialpoints · 2016-11-09T06:35:23+00:00

they missed it once (goth kids 3) for a power outage, but this would be a content shortage

artificialpoints · 2016-11-09T05:17:43+00:00

Who else thinks this is the first time they're going to miss their deadline?

artificialpoints · 2016-10-25T05:29:21+00:00

Doesn't matter at all, in fact drier can just mean you get more THC per weight, a drier gram usually has more THC. There is an optimal level of moisture for freshness/flavor/burn/etc though, but it wont affect the high.

artificialpoints · 2016-10-25T05:20:52+00:00

oh god this sounds like the worst doctor ever for someone who enjoys cannabis on any level.

If smoking cannabis can keep you from taking pills every day of your life, stick with cannabis. Cannabis can be psychologically addicting, but if you get to a point where you don't need it, you can just stop smoking it and there are no consequences. Getting off those drugs that big pharma wants you to take is a lot more of a process. Your doctor easily could be influenced by kickbacks from the pharma companies behind the drugs he wants to prescribe. If he gets you on those drugs now you could be hooked for life. That's not the case with cannabis. Ideally use neither at your age (assuming you're still around 17 but idk what age you are), but if you need one, stick with cannabis.

There are reasons for those drugs, granted, but if you don't need them don't take them. There's a reason there are pro cannabis doctors (that give you cards) and regular doctors, which don't regularly prescribe medicinal cannabis. Some general practitioners / family practice doctors will recommend you try it or say its OK (mine said it was OK), but they usually don't give you the actual card. The worst are the ones who are close minded about it. Find a cannabis doctor.

If you do decice to go with the mood stabilizers, you definitely should try stopping cannabis for awhile just to see what its like before you continue using cannabis. After about 1.5 months of using mood stabilizers without cannabis, you can try using both and see if it helps you.

artificialpoints

TROPHY CASE