According to Jeff Sessions, the next guy in line for the job, yes. Saying no to the president is a fucking job requirement.
Did you know that both Hitler and Obama ate food? Makes you wonder.
Yes…In fact it is. I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings of probability. There have only been a handful of times when the loser of the popular vote has won the electoral college…and you have to go back all the way to the first half of the 19th century to find a case when a candidate ended up President who lost the popular vote by more than Trump did (and I believe that involved the election ending up in Congress). So, what happened is a pretty damn rare event.
I meant to add that if events that you predict to occur 10% of the time happen much less often than that then you are overestimating the probability of their occurrence.
Which legal experts are those? There are currently six separate injunctions issued by six different federal judges regarding the Trump deportation/detention order.
Did you complain about Elliot Richardson’s refusal to carry out his President’s orders too?
Pshaw. Obviously aldiboronti knows better than judges.
We’re in the opening days of the reign of Donald the first, and already this place has gone to hell over that numskull.
Buckle up, cupcake, it’s bound to get worse.
If 91% chance of being elected is not a “safe lead”, I don’t know what is. 100%?
And “probability” in this case is pretty meaningless anyway. It is a unique, non-repeatable event.
We don’t actually have a Reichstag, yes? So, if President * tweets something accusing us of burning it down, maybe only about half the Trumpalumps will believe it?
We have this building instead.
Holy shit! You’re right! :eek:
They need to hold MORE hearings, and make Sessions answer the EXACT SAME questions.
We are seeing that the Constitution and rule of law and independent counsel take a back seat to obeying Trump. How obvious does it have to be???
I fully expect them to create a crisis or a war, in order to grab more power.
Wait for it …
Ugh, no, completely wrong. Non-repeatability means measuring the probability is difficult, but it doesn’t meant the concept of probability doesn’t apply.
So if you were told that the aircraft you were about to board had a 91% chance of not crashing, you’d hop on board anyway? A one-in-ten chance of a bad outcome seems “safe” to you?
[QUOTE=Okrahoma]
And “probability” in this case is pretty meaningless anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Then you can’t talk about the accuracy or inaccuracy of electoral predictions. All such predictions are based on probabilistic reasoning, and if you think that probability is meaningless in this context then the predictions are not even wrong.
The concept may apply but it is lacks meaning. It’s non-falsifiable. You can assign absolutely any probability to a non-repeatable event and there is no way to disprove it.
If it “lacks meaning”, then in what sense are you saying it “may apply”? Mathematical concepts apply to real-world contexts when/if they are meaningful in such contexts.
[QUOTE=Okrahoma]
It’s non-falsifiable. You can assign absolutely any probability to a non-repeatable event and there is no way to disprove it.
[/QUOTE]
This is a beautiful example of fallacious reasoning that I’m going to use in a homework exercise in the next assignment for this term’s probability class. Thanks! 
As I said, it is non-falsifiable.
Assume a non-repeatable event E.
Pundit A claims the probability of E happening of 98%
Pundit B - 50%
Pundit C - 2%
E happens. Which pundit was right and which was wrong? Can you say that pundit C was wrong? 2% is quite possible - it happens 2% of the time.
So if you can’t say which one was wrong, how does the “probability” they assign have meaning? It’s not like you can even judge it by the pundits’ past or future predictions, the event is non-repeatable. It hasn’t happened before and it will not happen again.
the illiteracy in the mathematics…
In any case, I share here in this thread the following:
Today my employer, a large international firm issued a travel warning on the United States suspending all the non essential business travel to the USA due to the large uncertainties on the issue of the implementation of the poorly written, poorly implemented and due to the phrasing that seems to indicate anyone suspected of having the citizenship tie to the countries can be stopped at the border. For the essential travel it must be cleared now.
It is something I have only seen before issued on the third world countries or the semi dictatorships like the Russian republic.
It is not a public document, it is not political posturing, it is official orientation after the legal review since the weekend, by the international lawyers advising my employer which has the global operatoins and a global workforce of many nationalities.
It is quite extraordinary. The idea some here on this board celebrate the US having given itself a huge black eye and made to look like an unstable and irrational actor like Putin’s Russia is quite bizarre.