(10-11-2016 12:27 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:05 AM)greekgod Wrote:  Email 3774...read it...it's going in the Smithsonian.

It's above Watergate.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...archresult

Did he really forget #5? Seriously, the guy dictating foreign policy to H-Rod can't count to 10 without fucking up, and these are the people in charge of our government.

I don't get it, he's saying in the emails go after ISIL, why is that bad?

"... 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >> Iraq and inside of Syria.""

(10-11-2016 01:40 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:27 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:05 AM)greekgod Wrote:  Email 3774...read it...it's going in the Smithsonian.

It's above Watergate.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...archresult

Did he really forget #5? Seriously, the guy dictating foreign policy to H-Rod can't count to 10 without fucking up, and these are the people in charge of our government.

I don't get it, he's saying in the emails go after ISIL, why is that bad?

"... 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >> Iraq and inside of Syria.""

Maybe you haven't noticed these shit plans haven't worked.

And the ISSUE is these are TOP SECRET

(10-11-2016 01:45 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:40 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:27 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:05 AM)greekgod Wrote:  Email 3774...read it...it's going in the Smithsonian.

It's above Watergate.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...archresult

Did he really forget #5? Seriously, the guy dictating foreign policy to H-Rod can't count to 10 without fucking up, and these are the people in charge of our government.

I don't get it, he's saying in the emails go after ISIL, why is that bad?

"... 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >> Iraq and inside of Syria.""

Maybe you haven't noticed these shit plans haven't worked.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015...s-fighters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec...hreatened/

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-te...st-n367596

That's just for starters.

Arab forces have never been cohesive and always selfish - basically militias fighting for their own causes, they'll never be united.

Iraq is telling Turkey to fuck off on the border, Turkey basically said fuck you, do something about.

(10-11-2016 01:40 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:27 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:05 AM)greekgod Wrote:  Email 3774...read it...it's going in the Smithsonian.

It's above Watergate.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...archresult

Did he really forget #5? Seriously, the guy dictating foreign policy to H-Rod can't count to 10 without fucking up, and these are the people in charge of our government.

I don't get it, he's saying in the emails go after ISIL, why is that bad?

"... 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >> Iraq and inside of Syria.""

It calls out Saudi and Qatari sponsorship of ISIS. They also are huge donors to Clinton. They are doing business with the people responsible for dead Americans at Paris, Orlando, Brussels, San Bernardino, etc

Blood on their hands. Irrefutable.

In otherwords, IKE, you can't work for Four Loco during the day and serve on the Moms Against Drunk Driving board at night.

It's incompatible.

In discussion of 538 poll results ....

(10-10-2016 08:03 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  The other factor is that his success is limited. He is wrong just as often as he is right.

True Silver admits be botched early eval of Trump, he says it was because those results were subjective estimates and not from his statistical model.

But in terms or actual elections, not primaries it seems you are very far off saying "he is wrong just as often as he is right."
Following from Wikipedia

2008
Senate 35/35 races correct
President States Won 49/50 correct

In 2008, Nate Silver correctly predicted the results of all 35 Senate races and the presidential results in 49 out of 50 states.

2010
Senate 34/37 races correct


Of the 37 Senate seats contested in the November 2, 2010 elections, 36 were resolved by November 4, including very close outcomes in several states. Of these 36, the FiveThirtyEight model had correctly predicted the winner in 34.

2012
Senate 31/33 races correct

President
50/50 States correct incl District of Columbia

Overall, averaging over 90% correct predictions of elections. Not equally wrong and right.

But maybe Trump can stump them all!! Who knows. Right now Silvers giving him less than a 25% chance.
Maybe you're right, and he's wrong, and Trump will win!

IKE give Silver a rest. He was horribly wrong in the primaries and thus he invalidated his model. A model is only as good as its underlying assumptions and the assumptions Sliver uses are no longer valid for the new world of Trumpism.

(10-11-2016 03:07 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  IKE give Silver a rest. He was horribly wrong in the primaries and thus he invalidated his model. A model is only as good as its underlying assumptions and the assumptions Sliver uses are no longer valid for the new world of Trumpism.

Silver is or is going to be rich , he doesn't need my help.

I'm interested in the psychology of all this. ALL his assumptions about polling are invalid? That seems hard to argue when his axtual election accuracy is 90% as I referenced above. The primaries he admitted were not done with his model, and were subjective. So it seems to have no relation to the validity of his model.

We'll see after the elections. He hasn't made his prediction yet. Right now he gives trump about 20% chance.

Supporting Silver's estimates, Gambling sites are giving odds that are very similar to Silver. One can glibly say "They're crazy too," but then leads to the assumption the only objective opinions are those of Trump supporters?

oddshark,
"The presidential odds shifted significantly in the days before the debate after a tape of Trump bragging about his vulgar actions toward women.... At one point Sunday, Clinton was a -500 favorite, her best odds yet to be president. In the minutes before the debate began, the former secretary of state had moved down to a -400 favorite with Trump’s odds remaining at +325.

Declaring a "new world of Trumpism" is highly subjective, and a lot easier than formulating a coherent statistical model that has had a very good record, so forgive me for giving him more credit than posters here presumably with far less credentials.

I don't see the existence of a hyperactive, charismatic, spoiled billionaire who manages to pay less taxes than me as any indication of a new world.

I'm not in love with HRC either. Sanders seemed like the real populist deal.

Seems like classic case of confirmation bias.

IKE, the only poll method that very accurately predicted the last election is the RAND method. The US/LaTimes poll uses this method and has Trump up (his lead has shrunk by quite a bit over the past few days, but still up by 2%).

Many of the polls Silver uses have been shown to oversample D. If I remember correctly, Reuters actually changed its methodology to make Clinton look ahead. Silver is in denial because like most liberals he cannot fathom that 'literallt Hitler' might be the next president. He is either deliberately or naively ignoring the oversampling in many polls. I didn't follow the elections closely in 2008 and 2012. But I can imagine that the polls back then were relatively accurate because they didn't need to oversample to make Obama look like he was ahead - he actually was leading. A statistical model with solid data (2008, 2012) works well, not so much with junk data like in 2016.

Furthermore, this election is reminiscent of the 1980 election where Reagan was vilified and the polls showed a dead heat up until the election itself. Of course Reason won in a landslide, which makes you wonder what the heck was going on with the polls in 1980.

And finally, Silver vehemently denied that Trump could win the nomination. On the flip side, you had guys like Scott Adams calling it from day one. I have Nate Silver's book and I admire what he's trying to do with data journalism. But I think he's really in denial about his own biases (e.g. when he tweeted that he didn't expect Republicans to lose their fucking mind). He has his own confirmation bias, any poll that shows HRC up is a poll he will take at face value.

of all of the emails posted (the ISIS one is insane)...this is the one that should worry the most...

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599

Quote:Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

also...

Quote:I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting!

The news, especially (((GOOGLE NEWS))) is totally FUCKED.

They're trying to push the narrative like "450,000 people have already voted before knowing about the tape!" and totally ignoring the massive wikileaks scandal going on.

And then, this shit:

^
Spreading far & wide as of writing.

Boom!
Round 3 for the Podesta emails.

@wikileaks 5m5 minutes ago

"RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 3 (1190 new emails) #HillaryClinton #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails3"

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=...archresult

Cot damnit. I only have a tiny amount of coffee left and I am struggling to figure out what the fuck happened when I was sleep. Did they make two drops or did that ISIL email come out yesterday?

Ok and at the top of Reddit, Obama is on video showing off his erection on what looks like an airplane.....

Yeah.. I think I am awake now.

   

   
   

(10-11-2016 08:03 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  [ (((CREDIT INDUSTRY SHILLS))) ]

(10-11-2016 12:27 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:05 AM)greekgod Wrote:  Email 3774...read it...it's going in the Smithsonian.

It's above Watergate.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...archresult

Did he really forget #5? Seriously, the guy dictating foreign policy to H-Rod can't count to 10 without fucking up, and these are the people in charge of our government.

Looks like to me someone took parts out of an entire writeup/analysis. Obviously Hillary. Usually you can tell when she just forwards stuff from her Blackberry as opposed to a PC. She obviously was sitting at a computer when she sent this to Podesta.

Her daughter's wedding plans eh? She recklessly took classified information and sent it to a god damn GMAIL account? This is ridiculously sloppy. Comey deserves jail for this.

(10-11-2016 01:45 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:40 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:27 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 12:05 AM)greekgod Wrote:  Email 3774...read it...it's going in the Smithsonian.

It's above Watergate.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...archresult

Did he really forget #5? Seriously, the guy dictating foreign policy to H-Rod can't count to 10 without fucking up, and these are the people in charge of our government.

I don't get it, he's saying in the emails go after ISIL, why is that bad?

"... 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >> Iraq and inside of Syria.""

Maybe you haven't noticed these shit plans haven't worked.

And the ISSUE is these are TOP SECRET

It looks at least CONFIDENTIAL or maybe SECRET, but how can you tell it is TOP SECRET? Is there a marking somewhere or is there some verification from a website somewhere confirming that?

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4433

Quote:I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.

KATIE COURIC https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4836

Quote:Hi John, Well, I know you had a good weekend! We've been working with the campaign folks to reschedule my interview with Secretary Clinton. I wanted to write you about some of the metrics that we are getting and let you know through placement on Facebook we can guarantee 1.5 million views in addition to Yahoo engagement which has been close to 1 million for my political interviews. I'd also like to do a separate piece of business through social media along the lines of "10 things you don't know about Hillary Clinton" that would showcase her personality and has a lot of viral potential. I know there is a lot of demands on her time, but we have been waiting patiently to schedule something and I'm sure we've been driving the campaign staff crazy, but the reach and engagement will be significant and I'm very much looking forward to having the opportunity to talk to her. I have been assured the campaign wants this as well. Can you help make this happen? I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks, John. Look forward to hearing from you. Best, Katie

Something that probably goes deeper:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4818

Quote:Philippe, You got to stop this. The press is trading in rumors that can easily originate in their own newsrooms. If someone wanted to leak juicy tidbits, they have a lot more to work with than our press planning. If we are going to be at each others throats before we start, we are going nowhere. John On Mar 9, 2015 1:13 PM, "Philippe Reines" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ok, this has gone too far. The email below is from Craig to Nick to me where someone knows an interview with Andrea was on the table. Seperately, Andrea just sent Nick this: "we are hearing news conference tomorrow?" ýThe Andrea part especially should only have been known to 10-12 people, 3 of whom are John, Cheryl & me.

I wish this dude would create an account here on RVF so we could chop him to pieces. I would clear my schedule just to light him up.


John Halpin

   

(10-11-2016 08:14 AM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4433

These leaks are far worse than the last batch. Less than 10 pages in, just skimming and there's alot of bad stuff. None of the dates are in order, so it seems like Wikileaks are amping up the emails day by day. There's what? 1 million of them? If they keep getting worse, in the next two weeks it might end up being killshot after killshot.