Thanks. I need a support thread now.

They don’t *have* to. They could democratize the galaxy a little....

I haven’t slept much. The best we can hope for is that his ego interferes with everything he does and he tries to be a president. Otherwise, he’s a rubber stamp for shitty Republican policies and a blank check to pack the court with people worse than Alito and Thomas.

That’s always been an easy question: living in a country that would elect him is terrifying. A Trump presidency will, more than likely, not be the terrible apocalypse it’s been described as. It will, however, suck mightily. The one thing that scares me more than anything is how it emboldens the hatred and angers and…

You sick bastard, take your star.

Bill. So brilliant.

I am enjoying them pointing out the various ways that the dunking has happened, here in the same thread with them. These three posts have no formed the perfect meta-post about this entire conglomerate. I even have some love for the guys still. My heart goes out to them for the dunking.

Yeah, I’m a fan of Burneko’s, but he was awfully...salty in the comments.

News: man good at football also bad at politics.

The symbols “= \ =” means “Does Not Equal”. The person to whom you are responding did not define hot take. He disagreed with the implied definition of another comment.

Here’s a star. Good luck.

Exactly. This spreading belief that a candidate has to perfectly fit a voter’s belief system is just weird. Adults don’t really believe they have to agree with everything a candidate does or says, do they?

Not exactly relevant, but always obligatory:

Which Silver himself issued a mea culpa for several months ago:

Ahem, McKinley did win the presidency. I know you were joking, but his assassination had nothing to do with his monetary policies, and despite the fame of William Bryant’s “Cross of Gold” speech, McKinley won in 1896 and 1900 and established the gold standard in 1900.

I’m on the other side of the fence in this argument than you, but what you might be missing is that he is making predictions that are falsifiable. They’re second-order rather than first-order. A first-order prediction would be something like “Clinton will win.” He’s never going to do that, and neither should he try. A…

There are no “established points of philosophy”; there are only different philosophies.

The problem is that he’s splitting the wrong hairs. “Forecast” is the correct term in this case, and he is inferring “prediction” from that instead of inferring “estimate”, which is what’s implied by the context and usage.

Honestly, he already answered every one of your complaints (which are invariably about Trump the pre-nominee):

Denotatively synonymous, but connotatively they carry specific meanings that differ. It’s like how you can’t just use a thesaurus randomly. You have to understand the context where the word is used. And “forecast” is used to discuss probabilities and estimates, whereas “prediction” is used to express certainty.