- 151,106
- 202,498
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 37,309
- 32,115
Why? This is idiotic.
- 14,877
- 36,031
The **** is this?
Is the General going to be a contest about who can ride a moose shirtless?
People, what is happening?
- 64,966
- 196,172
- 2,996
- 7,850
Idk if or how much you and others here listen to podcasts but this series in particular was really interesting imo.
Sheldon Silver was the most flagrantly crooked but I was kinda shocked that I hadn't heard about all this corruption, given my extensive interest in US politics and scandals.
I can't drive due to my epilepsy, which forces me to spend many hours on public transport, so I have lots of time to consume a ton of podcasts. I usually have one on when working from home too.
The New York State of Crime series is 4 episodes.
Speaking of politics and podcasts, I figured I'd share my list of politics-related podcasts. In case anyone ever wonders if I listen to domestic political podcasts, the answer is no.
Serious Trouble
https://www.serioustrouble.show/podcast
Hosted by Ken White (goes by Popehat on Twitter) and Josh Barro. It's pretty lighthearted, easily digestible and Ken White is a funny dude.
This one's paid (with free episodes). During the Trump presidency, they hosted the All The President's Lawyers podcast.
The Lawfare Podcast
Bit of everything here, largely focused on law and/or US national security/intelligence. Generally hosted by Benjamin Wittes.
I'd say this is moderately digestible, some episodes definitely require at least a mild understanding of the topic and/or underlying subjects.
Example:
The National Security Law Podcast
Title speaks for itself really. It's hosted by Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesney, both law professors and legal scholars.
You've probably seen tweets by Steve Vladeck in this thread regarding Supreme Court news etc.
I wouldn't describe this as easily digestible but for the topic, I think this is about as easy as it's going to get.
At minimum you definitely need a basic understanding of the US judicial system (particularly the federal court system) and relatively common judicial/court terms (standing, certiorari/cert, ... etc).
Given that I'm neither a lawyer or American and I don't have the google stuff, it's not that difficult to get into.
I’m going to give all of these a listen. Have you hered of the ALAB series aka All Lawyers are Bastards.
ALAB Series
www.alabseries.com
It takes a intermediate legal understanding to enjoy but it's really good if you like legal podcasts! The character break down of some notorious lawyers is great.
- 2,996
- 7,850
Yeah, he actively hates black people, and happily accepts bribes.
- 2,996
- 7,850
After that I expect they will go after any MWBE preferences with federal contracts and hiring practices. Each ruling providing grounds to then challenge the other.
- 11,409
- 12,654
Being a Black Republican in 2023 doesn't make sense at all.
- 29,252
- 41,688
They found Hunter Biden stash spot
dacomeup
Supporter
- 26,522
- 37,412
Definitely. But his underlying political ideology pre-blatant corruption was this wacky web of not trusting white people — which makes who he ended up being even more hilarious.
- 16,542
- 21,135
the non-orange GOP candidates must all be praying something happens to pull trump out of the race. it’s incredible that fat criminal piece of **** is by far the front runner.
aepps20
Supporter
- 42,505
- 90,665
Story time from da aepps life archives.
When Clarence Thomas was the head of the EEOC my father had a case in front of him. Many of you know that I grew up in Wyoming so I am used to that Old West Racism. The Klan in Wyoming accessorize their robs with Cowboy Hats and refer to themselves as the KKC ( Ku Klux Cowboys). My dad worked for the Bureau of Reclamation as a software engineer and was subjected to racism every day. Clarence essentially ruled that they had to give my dad back pay and a promotion he was passed over which shows how bad things were. Clarence is a difficult subject for me because on one hand he used to see how racism impacts everyone but on another he let money and power influence him to drop any principles that he had before.
Clarence is the aepps of NT. He stuck in the satire so long that he started to believe it himself.
- 151,106
- 202,498
- 1,370
- 2,957
I’m not defending Nate’s recent behavior because it’s mostly indefensible.
But back in October of ‘16, I attended a live taping of the 538 podcast. Everyone on his team and in the audience was fairly confident about the outcome, but Nate made a huge deal both pointing out that he’d lost some confidence in the model given new political realities and also that the existing model still had Trump at a significant chance of winning. He was pretty much the line naysayer that night and I remember wishing I’d paid more attention.
- 151,106
- 202,498
- 151,106
- 202,498
- 69,631
- 106,201
I’m betting someone obsessed with the Hunter stories left it there.
- 64,966
- 196,172
Like I said, Hunter Biden news needs to go in TAN
- 151,106
- 202,498
- 151,106
- 202,498
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,901
- 81,062
Whenever some low-info goof says that both parties are the same, show them this.
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,901
- 81,062
- 9,593
- 20,644
New conspiracy theory dropped
- 30,300
- 40,789
Let’s 
Owen and show him how fake it is.
Owen and show him how fake it is.
- 33,992
- 29,375
He had it down to 65-70,
70% is not "a lot", people just take 70 and round up to 100. It's dumb.
70% by which by win probability, that's the chance of a football team winning the game up 3, with an entire quarter left to play.
If your team was up 3 with and entire quarter left would you feel confident? You have a 70% victory. Obviously not.
And also you ignore the context. He gave Trump bY far the best shot, and TOLD people there was a ton of uncertainty and pretty much outlined how Trump could take it.
Looking at his forecast gave the best understanding nof what could happen.
This is not true, it was always skeptical of the "red wave" as they outlined
this idea he predicted a landslide is just wrong. They don't just give outcomes, they model uncertainty and the chance of a polling error.
I mean this really seems to be the crux of it, Nate has some hot takes you don't like
and as a result you've convinced yourself that actually he's dumb and bad at his job.
The reality is Nate can have bad takes and be good at forecasting. Annoying bad people can be good at things, it's okay.
He is obviously good at forecasting, and the increased unreliability of polling makes his model more valuable not less.
Looking his forecast consistently gave the most accurate and realistic idea of the range of outcomes.
Similar threads
