Be careful you don’t catch the Bitcoin fever Hooky. Before you know it, you’ll be talking to a Speedway clerk explaining the importance of Bitcoin.
Polymarket
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Polls mean absolutely nothing unless you’re 10-15 points ahead. Clinton was up 7 with a week to go and lost. No one knows until the votes are counted.
Oh, it’s not just the Dem hierarchy. I’ve talked to some of these people - and, honestly, the ones I know aren’t barking lunatics. They’re every bit as pissed at the old guard GOP — probably even more so.
That said, the guy does make some good points. He also makes some bad ones.
There are a lot of flavors of socialism, just as there are of Christianity. Socialism predates Marx; it's clearly there in the French Revolution and some attribute its basic tenants to Jesus himself (or Mazdak and the Khurramites, who I just learned about via the WCBC).
I think you can find quite a few people who genuinely embrace some form of socialism, but I'm struggling to think of an American politician or intellectual who would say they are Marxist. Do you have anyone in mind?
Marx had very specific theories about capitalism, economics, the philosophy of history, etc. that people don't understand, or if they do, wouldn't embrace.
Don't take my word for it, though. The Mises Institute agrees:
American Socialism Isn't Marxism—but It's Still a Problem | Mises Institute
To effectively counter this brand of American socialism, it is important to properly identify the problem, and to attack with precision.
There are a lot of flavors of socialism, just as there are of Christianity. Socialism predates Marx; it's clearly there in the French Revolution and some attribute its basic tenants to Jesus himself (or Mazdak and the Khurramites, who I just learned about via the WCBC).
I think you can find quite a few people who genuinely embrace some form of socialism, but I'm struggling to think of an American politician or intellectual who would say they are Marxist. Do you have anyone in mind?
Marx had very specific theories about capitalism, economics, the philosophy of history, etc. that people don't understand, or if they do, wouldn't embrace.
Don't take my word for it, though. The Mises Institute agrees:
American Socialism Isn't Marxism—but It's Still a Problem | Mises Institute
To effectively counter this brand of American socialism, it is important to properly identify the problem, and to attack with precision.mises.org
I know the difference.
As for an example, Richard Wolff comes first to mind. John Roemer at Yale.
Heck, Greece had a Marxist finance minister not terribly long ago. Yanis Varoufakis.
They’re not super common. But neither are they an endangered species.
Yep, Wolff is a good example. Not a politician, though, which is where I thought we were focusing.
If just general public, I'm sure for every Marxist in the academy, we can find a fascist in the forests of Tennessee. Here's a scary guy: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/august-kreis
We are in agreement, though, that there aren't many of these Nazi morons, and that in polite society it is much more acceptable to identify as a Marxist, especially in the academy. I just don't think you can get away with it in mainstream politics.
By the way, on the protean nature of the word fascism, just found this that you might appreciate:
Does American Fascism Exist?
For nearly a century, Americans have been throwing the term around—without agreeing what that means.
newrepublic.com
Yep, Wolff is a good example. Not a politician, though, which is where I thought we were focusing.
If just general public, I'm sure for every Marxist in the academy, we can find a fascist in the forests of Tennessee. Here's a scary guy: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/august-kreis
We are in agreement, though, that there aren't many of these Nazi morons, and that in polite society it is much more acceptable to identify as a Marxist, especially in the academy. I just don't think you can get away with it in mainstream politics.
By the way, on the protean nature of the word fascism, just found this that you might appreciate:
Does American Fascism Exist?
For nearly a century, Americans have been throwing the term around—without agreeing what that means.
It’s probably because many people believe that Marxism, like all flavors of socialism, is at least well-intentioned. Not too many people who aren’t fasicsts would look at fascism (properly understood) as being well-intentioned.
But socialists maintain that their intent is to improve the standard of living of people in the lower regions of the economic scale - which most people, understandably, view as noble, if misguided.
Like Orwell, I think the term “fascist” is a term that once had meaning, but is mostly now just used as a generic epithet.
It’s more common lately, because charges of racism have just lost their ability to put political or ideological adversaries on the defensive. I’m not even sure protean is the best word to describe it - as that suggests that its meaning is only shifting. I think I’d call it something more like amorphous.
Final 2020 poll was Biden +11. They had Biden +5 in Florida in October 2020. Florida. And Texas tied. 🤡🤡🤡
So you associate polling error with the ideology of the person or people who conduct the poll?
I mean, the WSJ’s final poll in 2020 was Biden +10. Sometimes a polling error is just a polling error.
Those polling errors are always in the same direction. Go look at the RCP polling from the last 2 elections.
And did you know that Trump has out performed his polling average in every single state both elections? That's 100 states and it doesn't happen by accident.
Something he said made me wonder: could Trump get tens of thousands of his supporters to move from California or Illinois or New York (or maybe firmly red states) to battle ground states?
I think he just might be able to do that if he had put in the effort starting a few months ago. That would be a game changer.
Lots of polls had Trump low in 2016 and 2020. Pretty much all of them to one degree or another, as I recall.
I’ve been told before that some hardcore Trumpers like to screw with pollsters by lying to them about their preferences, opinions, and intentions.
Sounds plausible. And many of the same pollsters were wrong about House and Senate races in 2022 - which is why the outcome looked a lot different than what forecasters like Cook Political were predicting.
Anyway, it’s silly to suggest that QPac is cooking their numbers, especially out of political or ideological favor. Their polls don’t affect election outcomes, after all. The only incentive they have is to be accurate - as that will get them more commissions and a better reputation.
I think Drunkenmiller is correct. Also, if Bitcoin breaks out to all time highs before the election, Trump will be the next President in my opinion.
You guys are truly deep into the dancing Orange Orangutan’s cult. The polls say he’s going to win. If he doesn’t there’s fraud again. And he will once again make the call to arms because he just can’t accept losing. This is the same guy who filed bankruptcy 6 times. That’s the ultimate loser. Polls don’t predict anything. Votes do.
I didn’t post a poll. It’s a betting market. Also, Drunkenmiller isn’t talking about polls either. He’s an investor and made his prediction based on what he is seeing in the markets. He values those more than polls.
Well let’s see every election since 1976 I’ve had to show my id. Each state has their rules. Every state And that’s 5 different states including 2 blue states. You nut bags continue to throw out the voter fraud crap because you can’t face losing. Please explain how the fraud would actually work. How is it that you could actually fool poll workers who are both democratic and republican? And you’d have to have some mastermind orchestrating the whole thing. Flat earth anyone?
Let’s go back to 2020. How is it that 130 republicans voted to not certify the election where they were on the same ballot. If it was fraudulent then they should have not been seated because by their logic the ballots were corrupted. If it was fraudulent then why wouldn’t other republicans have lost?
60+ courts threw out the claims because the loser didn’t provide any credible evidence to uphold their claims. And if there is fraud wouldn’t it be just as likely that republicans would do it as well? Or wait republicans are the party of law and order. They wouldn’t dare violate the law. Remind us again how many Dancing Orange Orangutan administration officials have been indicted? Not to mention those perfectly peaceful protesters on January 6th. Oh yeah weren’t there a bunch of Nazi’s in that crowd? Just the kind of republicans you want as neighbors.
Then why did Newsom just sign into law that voters in California don’t have to have a voter ID . Your condescending attitude represents how small your genitals are.
Trump is certainly corrupt. Thanks for pointing to yet another piece of evidence about his corruption.
Have you been peeking in my window. And why is it with you cultists everything is about size. Are you projecting?
I haven’t talked to Newsome lately nor any lawmakers there so not sure what their thinking is. To vote in California you have to have proof of citizenship, be a resident of the state, be 18 or older, not in the penn and not be mentally Incompetent. Make particular note of the US citizenship requirement. When I lived in California I had to prove those things. I’m thinking that’s pretty much the standard in all states. If I give my name, address, and date of birth and it matches what the state has on file, why would I need to show my id? Who’s going through the difficult process of getting another persons info just to cast a single vote? And even if someone did, it would have to be organized over multiple states and no one can get caught or the gig is up. Think how stupid that sounds.
nice deflection from the points in my last post to you. You know the one that questions why the republicans that voted to not certify the election didn’t bother to bring up the fact that they were on the same corrupt ballot. I await with bad breath on your explanation. Don’t worry you won’t have to rescind your membership in the flat earth society if you find yourself wondering about that.
I generally agree that betting markets should be taken with a grain of salt. They're only a spot measure of sentiment about who's going to win. And that's all they are. Trump supporters are touting them, naturally, because they're trending (slightly) towards a Trump win. But...
Hillary Clinton's futures were trading above $0.80 on Election Day 2016. And look how that turned out. All that it meant was that most people who were participating in those markets thought she would win -- which isn't surprising. Most people everywhere expected her to win.
But, FWIW, Polymarket isn't the only betting market showing the race at 60% expectation of a Trump victory. Pretty much all of them are. But that's likely to change between now and Election Day -- and it could very easily change in Harris' favor.
That's not what the polls say. You said his I hate Taylor Swift post was dumb but the polls keep going up.
The polls would be higher. Do you not understand that? It’s fcking stupid. You’re drawing a moronic connection
That exchange reminds me of the scene from "Unforgiven" where Little Bill keeps derisively referring to English Bob as "The Duck of Death" -- until English Bob's mousy scribe finally corrects him and says "The...the Duke."
"Duck, I says."
I have no idea if that’s true but that’s the point. She’s the worst candidate I’ve ever seen. She has zero depth. Zero understanding. She speaks with cliches she has rehearsed like a trained parrot and doesn’t do follow ups other than but trump bc she’s too stupid. She is a horrible candidate. He should be up by 25 points
Trump needs to just stay quiet. Calling people names isn’t anything independents want in a president. Every time he opens his mouth he does harm to his chances. Hide in the basement and let Vance talk
I understand all that. But I just linked this video in the Harris/Trump thread of Simon on MT and they give a little more detail to the problems with Polymarket beyond just what he said in his tweet...I generally agree that betting markets should be taken with a grain of salt. They're only a spot measure of sentiment about who's going to win. And that's all they are. Trump supporters are touting them, naturally, because they're trending (slightly) towards a Trump win. But...
Hillary Clinton's futures were trading above $0.80 on Election Day 2016. And look how that turned out. All that it meant was that most people who were participating in those markets thought she would win -- which isn't surprising. Most people everywhere expected her to win.
But, FWIW, Polymarket isn't the only betting market showing the race at 60% expectation of a Trump victory. Pretty much all of them are. But that's likely to change between now and Election Day -- and it could very easily change in Harris' favor.
You can skip forward to about the 8 minute mark to see that particular discussion...
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Kamala Harris booked exclusive interview with Brett Baier on Fox- Latest: BradStevens