The White House is considering executive action that would allow President Joe Biden to effectively shut down the border to migrants crossing unlawfully, according to three sources familiar with the matter—a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.
And you all told me the blue maga border bill that Republicans rejected was 4d chess.
Nate Silver also pushes ‘Both Sides’. He’s a statistician, not a polisci specialist.
He’s a good person to watch to get a feeling for what the people who would make the decision of who to run in the Democratic Convention are thinking. Since that is what matters, and not, you know, democracy.
I’m curious, do you play board games, and if you do, how do you feel about board games that contain “kingmaking” elements?
It’s related, I promise.
Also, I apologize for the earlier insults and claims of bad faith. I strongly disagree with you, but you didn’t deserve those. I’m sorry.
He’s a good person to watch to get a feeling for what the people who would make the decision of who to run in the Democratic Convention are thinking.
… is he? Nate Silver is a statistician without strong ties to the Democratic Party. Why would his opinions influence the decisionmakers in the DNC? Or reflect them?
I’m curious, do you play board games, and if you do, how do you feel about board games that contain “kingmaking” elements?
Haven’t played any board games in a long time, but I used to enjoy those kinds. I used to play In The Shadow Of The Emperor.
Also, I apologize for the earlier insults and claims of bad faith. I strongly disagree with you, but you didn’t deserve those. I’m sorry.
Nah, it’s fine. I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t get heated about politics. It’s one of the things in the world where you absolutely SHOULD be pissed.
He absolutely reflects the opinions of a very specific subset of people that that also has the decision makers as a subset.
There absolutely several public figures you can watch that reflect the views of the people that make the decisions.
Kingmaking is a thing that happens in games that involve more than two people where at the end game it becomes clear that only two people could potentially win, and the other players have to continue playing without the possibility to win, but end up with the power to make a choice on who of the two potential winners does in fact win.
Some people absolutely hate it, and feel that any decision made by one of the players that can’t win that involves anything that isn’t self-motivated as cheating.
Some people don’t love it, but don’t hate it, and have the view that the two people winning should take into account their own popularity with the decisions they make before the game devolved into only two potential winner, and that if they lose from people being mad at previous decisions that it is their own fault.
I’ve tried to give an unbiased description, though I obviously have an opinion.
He’s a good person to watch to get a feeling for what the people who would make the decision of who to run in the Democratic Convention are thinking. Since that is what matters, and not, you know, democracy.
I’m curious, do you play board games, and if you do, how do you feel about board games that contain “kingmaking” elements?
It’s related, I promise.
Also, I apologize for the earlier insults and claims of bad faith. I strongly disagree with you, but you didn’t deserve those. I’m sorry.
… is he? Nate Silver is a statistician without strong ties to the Democratic Party. Why would his opinions influence the decisionmakers in the DNC? Or reflect them?
Haven’t played any board games in a long time, but I used to enjoy those kinds. I used to play In The Shadow Of The Emperor.
Nah, it’s fine. I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t get heated about politics. It’s one of the things in the world where you absolutely SHOULD be pissed.
There absolutely several public figures you can watch that reflect the views of the people that make the decisions.
Kingmaking is a thing that happens in games that involve more than two people where at the end game it becomes clear that only two people could potentially win, and the other players have to continue playing without the possibility to win, but end up with the power to make a choice on who of the two potential winners does in fact win.
Some people absolutely hate it, and feel that any decision made by one of the players that can’t win that involves anything that isn’t self-motivated as cheating.
Some people don’t love it, but don’t hate it, and have the view that the two people winning should take into account their own popularity with the decisions they make before the game devolved into only two potential winner, and that if they lose from people being mad at previous decisions that it is their own fault.
I’ve tried to give an unbiased description, though I obviously have an opinion.
Hopefully the parallel is obvious, too.