Never was there a more deflated balloon of an anticipated announcement than Nancy Pelostomy's invocation of the 25A. Pelostomy fails to recognize there is already "a process" established, and she needs no "commission" to make recommendations. As section 4 of the 25A already establishes [but the latter of options has never been invoked], either the President declares his inability, or the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet declare to the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, their advice of the president's inability, or Congress must pass legislation to declare another body, such as itself, potentially, to make the declaration of the President’s inability to function in office. After all this time [53 years since ratification of the 25A], she should not need a commission. Compose a bloody bill and see if it will pass. But, as usual, though declaring her undying defense of the Constitution [which is not the verbiage of her oath of office], Pelostomy understands not one bloody word of it.
Invoking the 25A
Posts
Total:
32
-->
@fauxlaw
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
If this bill passes, liberty is dead.
-->
@MisterChris
Agree, and more concerning is that if Biden happens to win [unless the election is rigged, he hasn't a chance] Kammie, as VP{, invoke the 25A within the 1st quarter, and she won't need the bill; she would have the authority to invoke.
On the rigging, I believe the S.C. primary that gave Biden his first primary win was rigged as a trial balloon for this mail-in balloting routine. Having succeeded, along with a convenient virus [also a probable rigged event], the Dem Party effectively had a virtual brokered convention, just like the real one in 1952 that buried Kefauver in preference for Stevenson, who did not even run a primary campaign. Kefauver was snookered, and so was Sanders this year.
-->
@MisterChris
I think that U.S. liberty is already coughing up blood.
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps, but I did that when I was 30-something. I'm still here, 40 years later, healthier, if a little slower, than then..
-->
@fauxlaw
True...Maybe Trump is just a glitch.
it will fail in the senate
-->
@zedvictor4
More probably, Trump is the first President in a long time who accomplishes his promises and goals. I am one of many Americans who is far better off now, demonstrably, than with Oba'a, who can talk a good line, sometimes, but did little for me, personally. I barely broke even with losses beginning under Bush, who was no great shakes, either. The latter was just another Prog who happened to wear an R.
-->
@fauxlaw
[unless the election is rigged, he hasn't a chance]
lol, so unless the election is rigged then the guy who is up by 10 points and winning in most battleground states has no chance of winning? I'm not sure you understand how elections work.
Never was there a more deflated balloon of an anticipated announcement than Nancy Pelostomy's invocation of the 25A. Pelostomy fails to recognize there is already "a process" established, and she needs no "commission" to make recommendations.
I'd say it's one of 2 things.
1) she knows this will never go anywhere and it is just a stunt to take a potshots at trump. All she is looking for is to remind people how unsuitable for office Trump is and take some of the news spotlight away from him.
2) she is using Trump to try to sneak through a measure to allow congressional leadership (ie her) to have more control over the presidency. If someone she doesn't like wins (like bernie sanders for example) she can use the mechanism to just force them out of office. Thus helping her to protect her Neo-Liberal rich asshole club who controls the democratic party.
Personally, I would guess it is the former rather than the latter. Someone would have to be really bad for it not to seem extremely shitty removing them this way. Not that I would put it past her, but it would be pretty damaging if she used this even on Trump. And to use it on someone other than Trump would probably be much more damaging. And since Trump is about to be voted out, I would guess it's just a stunt.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not sure you understand how elections work.
Surety has naught to do with it. You do not understand how polls work. The fact is, they rarely do. Not when preconceived bias is part of the "science," and media sponsors it. I am a Six Sigma Black Belt. I know statistical science, and current polling is about as scientific as the current climate models. Tell me, for example, how accurate tsunami 'science' is when the "model" is a vertical-sided, flat-bottomed steel tank? Ever see an ocean with those parameters? Your "climate science" is all of 200 hundred years old. Come back to me when it is 3,000 years old, like physics. That's History, buff, and you and your 'global warming,' let alone polling accuracy, don't have it.
-->
@fauxlaw
I actually wrote a research paper on the flaws of climate science: https://www.academia.edu/42176784/Climate_Change_Separating_Myth_and_Misfortune
-->
@fauxlaw
Surety has naught to do with it. You do not understand how polls work. The fact is, they rarely do.
What are you even talking about? They are usually pretty accurate. In 2016 Trump overperformed his polls by like 2% in a couple areas. Because the race was tight and the way the electoral college works, he was able to use this to win the electoral college. But the polls were pretty accurate. I don't know why right wingers insist that polls that were really close are somehow completely fake.
-->
@HistoryBuff
polls that were really close are somehow completely fake.
Here's the fake:
1. Current political polling is mostly directed to "registered voters," 49% of whom did not bother to vote in 2016, and similar figures in elections going back 20 years and more. That 49% figure into polling results, meaning that people with no opinion when it comes to voting express voting opinions. Flaw #1.
2. Current polling typically uses 1,000 samples, sometimes less, when the science says that in a population of 250M people [the number of registered voters] you need a sample size minimum of 2,401 respondents. Insufficient samples means skewed and inaccurate results.
3. Sample size is tied to margin of error [moe], which is typically indicated at ±3% [a total spread of 6%], which is painfully excessive when accuracy is critical. Often the moe exceeds ±3%. For best accuracy, the moe must be ±2%. Tied to this is the the general failure of readers of polls to take the moe factor into account, concentrating on just the raw data result, such as that one candidate has a 5% advantage in the raw result, but ignoring that there is a ±3% moe, meaning that there is a total spread of potential error of 6%, which exceeds the 5% noted separation. Therefore, statistically, the two candidates are really in a statistical dead heat.
4. Polling should limit the poll to 10 questions. Current political polling asks 40 - 50 questions. After 10 questions, those polled begin to lose interest, and the accuracy of their answers plummets. That's just the way it is. People will say anything just to be rid of the poll they have been sucked into participation. Human behavior.
5. How questions are structured is a science all its own, with questions having the danger of expressing bias, and receiving a biased answer. This bias can be innocently applied by poor question structure, or it can be by design to illicit a desired biased answer.
6. When polling knows it has a varied sample group, such as addressing Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, the polling must assure they have an equal number of respondents in each category, or their results will be skewed. A review of current political polls indicates that the typical poll has a majority bias toward Democrat respondents, therefore skewing the results to a Democrat-based conclusion. Sometimes, this sample group bias advantages Democrats by up to 15%. Why do you think your polls indicate Trump will lose, and should have lost in 2016?
Any questions why political polls are inaccurate?
-->
@MisterChris
I'm reading your paper with great interest.
-->
@fauxlaw
Why do you think your polls indicate Trump will lose, and should have lost in 2016?
The polling in 2016 actually showed a pretty tight race. By the end, there was only about a 4% gap nationally. In general trump over performed polling by about 2%, but polling was more off in a few key states. So even though the polling was pretty accurate overall, because trump managed to squeak by and win in a few critical states, primarily the rust belt, he was able to lose the popular vote by millions of votes, but still win the electoral college. This is why he won.
Objective political analysts in 2016 would not have thought that a 4% lead was somehow a guaranteed win for HRC. But trump was just such a repugnant candidate to the neo-liberal establishment (which most news pundits sort of fit into) that this caused them to think Trump couldn't win, even though the polling suggested it was very possible for him to win.
Any questions why political polls are inaccurate?
just the 1. In 2016, as a general trend, trump overperformed his polls by about 2%. there were isolated cases where the polling was further off. But on the whole, they were actually pretty accurate.
So why are you arguing that polling isn't accurate, when history indicates that most of the time, they are? And yes, I accept that there are certainly specific examples where polling can fail or be intentionally skewed.
-->
@fauxlaw
My paper barely scratches the surface. I highly recommend you read this book by geologist Gregory Wrightstone.
"He is a Senior Fellow at the Cornwall Alliance and is an Advisory Board member of the Heartland Institute."
He knows his stuff, and is able to go into depth about some climate mechanics I wasn't able to for the sake of time.
-->
@fauxlaw
Polls can’t account for social desirability bias. Hell they can’t even get a representative sample in heavily Trump areas cause no one picks up the phone. It’s not even randomized if you think about it.
HB and the Election Mafia are glorified poll readers who don’t know how polls are conducted and the various errors that compound results. Even the averages are inaccurate because the methodology is different which is a horrible comparison of polls.
-->
@ILikePie5
HB and the Election Mafia are glorified poll readers who don’t know how polls are conducted and the various errors that compound results. Even the averages are inaccurate because the methodology is different which is a horrible comparison of polls.
so despite the fact that I have provided stats (in our other conversation) showing that the polls in 2016 were quite accurate in most states, you just continue to repeat the mantra that they were wrong, even though they weren't. I cannot understand this cult mentality of just repeating the same lie to yourself over and over when the facts prove it isn't true.
-->
@HistoryBuff
so despite the fact that I have provided stats (in our other conversation) showing that the polls in 2016 were quite accurate in most states, you just continue to repeat the mantra that they were wrong, even though they weren't. I cannot understand this cult mentality of just repeating the same lie to yourself over and over when the facts prove it isn't true.
They weren’t accurate in the critical states. I already proved that to you. You fundamentally don’t know anything about polling or how it’s done. You have a statistician explaining to you why polling is flawed. You just refuse to listen. State polling was off in the rust belt by a mile. Period.
-->
@ILikePie5
He totally doesn't understand that Biden winning with a 70 to 30 percent spread in California and New York isn't going to win the election for Biden.
The Electoral College system penalizes echo-chamber states heavily.
-->
@fauxlaw
If not by polling, how do you personally judge who is likely to win? Or is it more a case of you don't have an objective measure, but you support Trump and are optimistic for him nonetheless?
-->
@dustryder
We objectively know the polls were wrong in 2016. More importantly, much more importantly, we objectively know exactly WHY the polls were wrong in 2016.
-->
@Greyparrot
Even given the case that the polls were wrong and you know why they were wrong, you can't actually accurately quantify these factors to say Trump is definitively winning.
-->
@dustryder
I happen to live in an echo-chamber state. It's a miracle defying odds that I know what I know.
If you live in an echo-chamber state, you have my sympathies.
-->
@dustryder
I have no problem with the concept of polling, if only polling agencies would do it correctly. I've noted just six issues with polling that prevent it from being done correctly. You are well aware of the result: garbage in, garbage out. Let them do it correctly, or don't bother. It's like climate "science," which depends on accurate measurement as well. Tell me, genius, how you get accurate measurement worldwide when your measurement equipment is all different, of differing measurement accuracy, and not calibrated to the same standard, if calibrated at all. Am I wrong that these issues are important? Or, do you just ignore the problems and accept the results, anyway. That's not science, my friend, that's seat-of-the-pants guess work. Go ahead; tell me I'm wrong. Just know that, relative to such measurement, I am a retired professional with 40 years of a doctorate and working experience in over 30 countries. You have...?
-->
@fauxlaw
Your puffery is well noted and neither impresses me or has relevance to the matter at hand.
You have the conviction that Biden does not have a chance, so I wished to know where this conviction comes from if not polls. If from simple hope, all well and good. If from some other measure, even better.
You have the conviction that Biden does not have a chance, so I wished to know where this conviction comes from if not polls. If from simple hope, all well and good. If from some other measure, even better.
-->
@dustryder
Wish all you wish. As you dismiss puffery, it is deflected back at you. Lack of scientific method is no justification you recognize.
-->
@dustryder
You have the conviction that Biden does not have a chance, so I wished to know where this conviction comes from if not polls. If from simple hope, all well and good. If from some other measure, even better.
No one here thinks Trump is definitive to win. Some people think that Biden is definitive to win because the polls show him up by 10 nationally.
But to answer your question as to why we think Trump will win. Fundamentals. People feel they are better off than they were 4 years ago. Trump is trusted on the economy far more than Joe Biden. Trump has almost record levels of enthusiasm compared to Joe. College campuses are ghost towns. Supreme Court is on the ballot again, which Joe refuses to talk about (biggest issue for conservatives who don’t really like Trump which can nudge them to vote for him.)
-->
@ILikePie5
People feel they are better off than they were 4 years ago.
a handful of people on here say that. That is a very long way from being an important trend that could affect an election. How would you determine this except via polling? Or are you just making this up?
Trump is trusted on the economy far more than Joe Biden.
recent polling shows biden pretty close, if not leading, in this category now. As well as winning in literally every other category.
Trump has almost record levels of enthusiasm compared to Joe.
having a small group of very enthusiastic supporters is good. But when the bulk of the population is sick of him and wants him gone, those enthusiastic supporters matter for less. No one is excited by Biden, ALOT of people are excited to be rid of trump.
College campuses are ghost towns.
so all those college kids will be voting in their home towns. What is your point?