jfv wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 10:33 am

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 10:27 am

GuyLaCroix wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 9:45 am
I'm not saying Trump is ahead, I'm just saying that hubris makes Nate the 'weatherman of ideology' or whatever goofy thing we could call him. There is a vast constituency on the conservative side that just gets forgotten about every time this comes up, and he's never been great at accounting for it.

It's like when people tell me Texas is gonna go blue. I just can't imagine that happening, and if you grew up outside of a major metro area in that state, you shouldn't be able to either. The work has been done to ensure that this won't be the case.

it still sounds like you're saying they underestimate trump. texas is solid red according to everyone. who is this strawman feeding you election info?

At least one prominent web site (one to which Nate Silver contributes!) says that Texas is one of several likely tipping point states and is NOT a "Solid R".

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

jfv wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 11:46 am I don’t follow your logic, FM hbiden.

On one hand, you’re embracing the uncertainty explained by Nate Silver.

On the other hand, you are deterministically guaranteeing that Trump will win Texas.

nate silver wrote:Flag-Wavers: Some months ago, I was being a typical Somebody-Is-Wrong-On-The-Internet type, arguing about some-or-another nonsense where I thought Democrats were being hypocritical. I don’t think it was the Lauren Boebert thing but let’s just use that as an example of an appropriately low-stakes controversy. An IRL friend of mine, first initial S. — someone who I lot of respect for, but we spar on politics a lot and he’s definitely to my left — was basically like “Hey man, don’t harsh our vibe here — we’re just trying to have fun, not everything has to be the Oxford Debating Society”.

It’s a fair point. Many people — probably the majority of people who argue about politics on the Internet on any given day, although not necessarily the majority of influential ones — are doing so primarily for recreational or hobbyist reasons, especially when it comes to minor, C-block on MSNBC controversies like the Boebert scandal. They are trying to have fun and signal to their tribe that they’re one of the Good Guys. Some of them are capable of serious political thought on more important issues, or at least have reasonably well-articulated priors, although others don’t.

But they’re not really trying to win arguments. Flag-Wavers are like the paper to us Somebody-Is-Wrong-On-The-Internet rocks; arguing against them is like punching a paper bag because they’re not really accepting our terms of engagement. To complete the cycle, they are susceptible to Country Lawyer scissors, however, because they can be drafted into adding manpower to an ill-advised argument.

TylerDeadPine wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:09 pm Newsweek and the NY Post have told me for the last 4 years that Kommifornians were leaving for Texas in droves, so it would make sense if it's now the center of the Granola universe. I trust my sources!!

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:15 pm

TylerDeadPine wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:09 pm Newsweek and the NY Post have told me for the last 4 years that Kommifornians were leaving for Texas in droves, so it would make sense if it's now the center of the Granola universe. I trust my sources!!

i would say it's colorado

The Congressional Budget Office projects that interest costs in 2024 will total $892 billion — a jump of 36 percent from the previous year and following increases of 35 and 38 percent in each of the two years before that. This year’s high interest bill isn’t a one-year phenomenon, it’s part of a trend that stretches out into the future, as debt continues to climb and relatively high interest rates push up the cost of federal borrowing. Over the next decade, the U.S. government’s interest payments on the national debt are now projected to total $12.9 trillion