Slashdot Mirror
Perfect Coin-Toss Record Broke 6 Clinton-Sanders Deadlocks In Iowa (marketwatch.com)
schwit1 writes: While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it's easy to say who was luckier. The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
Oh gee, a coin toss. And Hilary won all 6? Doesn't sound fishy at all...
Who cares, Hillary has already reached her term limit.
Play the futures market as well as Hillary, can arrange to have a perfect 6 out of 6 in a simple coin toss contest..
Can I see that coin again?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Seems Bill isn't the only Clinton that can get some head when in need.
If the coins and flips were fair, the odds against either candidate winning all flips is 97%.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
It is a 1 in 64 chance of it happening. The odds are not all that bad.
Unless Hillary runs the next 'Justice' department she will go to federal prison.
That's not true. She will be the next Henry Kissinger for 30-40 years. There's where the real power is, and without the gossipy press nosing around..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
where they just throw the coin in the air and declare it flipped.
How is it any less likely then any other combination?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Low probability things do happen.
How so?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I'd look elsewhere for caucus fraud (and there are already reports coming out). A conspiracy to cheat the coin tosses would be huge and impossible to keep quiet.
See that "Preview" button?
I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins. Not that I have proof that that's what happened.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Well considering these were 6 different coin flips in 6 different locations with 12 different people calling heads or tails, how can you group them together. It seems odd, but is it really?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
6 coin flips and all for one person, I am going to call B.S.!
Calling Bernie Sanders? How's that going to help?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I could think of a couple of worse candidates.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
So are you are implying that:
1) Hillary rigged the coin toss in 6 physically disparate locations in which the need for the coin toss could not have been predicted before hand?
Or
2) HIllary rigged the coin toss in all precincts prior to the caucus on the off chance that she and Bernie would poll as a dead heat?
And by Hillary I don't mean her personally, but people in her campaign or associated with her campaign that wanted to see her win. Hell it could even had been Trump supporters for all the sense that rigging a coin toss makes.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
While yes, each specific combination is equally as likely, looking at each toss in a non-unique way makes the odds a but less likely. Considering 6 tosses, you're much more likely to get 3 head and 3 tails in no specific order than you are 6 heads.
If a republican wins, she wears orange. The dirt that Bill had on them has gone past it's 'use by' date.
Not sure if Sanders would help her evade justice. More than likely he would. Be he doesn't stand a chance in the general, unless the R's really fuckup. If he stands a chance, so does a 3rd party.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If I hadn't commented, I would have to mod you up/
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Supreme Court nomination
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Who do you think provided the coins? The big banks! And who created the coins? The establish-MINT.
Wake up, sheeple!
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Sounds to me like the "system" worked as designed, except that Hillary didn't walk away with a clear margin of victory. Don't worry, there is no way Sanders is going to beat the Clinton machine at this game. There is no way some crazy white guy calling himself a socialist is going to best "the Hill" like the unknown junior senator from Illinois did 8 years ago..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier. They tried to close the doors and were barely stopped from flat stealing the election.
It's easy to cheat on a coin toss, if the people aren't really who they say they are.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Add a little Bayes to your analysis - what is a reasonable a priori estimate that Clinton would bother to cheat at these coins? Even if it were 1%, the 3% chance of it happening under fair conditions would mean that the probability of cheating given the outcome would be only 25%.
In other news the usa is increasingly looking like one of the many banana republics it created. The same methods used for the outer reaches of empire are starting to poison their inventor.
There are 2^6 possible ways the coin tosses could have gone down (eg toss A for hillary, toss B for bernie, etc). Of these 64 scenarios, only one results in Hillary winning all six tosses. Thus the odds are 1/64.
Compare this to a scenario in which each party wins exactly three of the six flips. Of the 64 possible scenarios, twenty of them result in a 3-3 split (you can write it all out to confirm). so the odds of a 3-3 split are 20/64.
So the odds of hillary winning all six coin tosses are 20 times less likely than the odds of a 3-3 split! she basically won the lottery (or somebody had their thumb on the scale).
NEVER say those last three words again!
Control over the money supply.
No you can't look at them as a group. They were all done by completely separate people. They did not all land heads and Bernie's people called some of the tosses. There is no common ground for the tosses so you have to take the individually.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
She picked the silver side.....
love is just extroverted narcissism
Why on Earth would anyone ever actually vote for Hillary Clinton? She is a horrid shitstain of a human being who belongs in prison. She is power-mad and worse, part of a dynasty. We don't need that shit in America. So, who are you people who support her? More importantly, WHY do you support her? How can you possibly reward her lawbreaking with an election to the highest office in the land? The arguments I've seen so far are that she's a woman so women should vote for her, and voting Hillary is a kind of protest vote against Trump. Look, there's already Sanders for people who want to throw their votes away, you don't need two protest candidates. I am really geniunely curious how so many of you out there can support her.
Oh, and for anyone who doesn't think it was a big deal: what if Senator Ted Cruz kept his own private email server that was promptly rooted by several foreign countries, and routed classified emails through there? Kind of puts the right perspective on Hillary's crimes, don't you think?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The odds for Hillary were always 100% - Bernie doesn't believe in money.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If a republican wins, she wears orange.
Not so. She gets a preemptive pardon. If her nomination is in danger, Biden remains on standby.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You know, it depends on how you flip it, which apparently you can do without having any ill intent.
Years ago in playing some games with co-workers, a coin toss was part of something. I would occasionally get about 8-10 in a row.
People used to kind of freak out, because I'd flip the same thing a bunch of times and they said it was statistically impossible. I said I just flipped the coin and they could see me do it.
Much later I saw things which suggested if you know how to flip it, you can control the outcome ... which means you can possibly do it by accident.
Is it still a fair coin toss if I have no idea how it happened? I sure wasn't cheating, and I couldn't do it on command, it just happened sometimes.
Really, statistically unlikely means just that -- given enough samples the chances pretty much become 100%.
Oooh, 3 of 100 times you could get that outcome, quick, call the witch doctor.
Statistically unlikely stuff happens all the freakin' time.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why are you claiming that the Democratic Caucus, which is run by the Democratic Party (a private institution), for the purpose of choosing a candidate to run in the election under the Democratic banner, has anything to do with how we run our elections. It is the way the Democrats choose their candidate, the Republican party can do it how they see fit, and it does nothing to stop any third party candidate. But to claim that it in anyway shows the state of how we as a country run our actual election is ludacris. The party members choose by the rules they implement, which is how it should be.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Pretty sure insurance doesn't pay off in case of "suicide".
ohhhh, too soon?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
One of these days I will actually use the preview.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Unless Hillary runs the next 'Justice' department she will go to federal prison.
Don't get between her and the oval office, unless your insurance is paid up.
Who are you kidding? She's not getting charged for ANY of this.
At worst she gets dinged for some "process crime" like Sandy Berger did when he got caught with classified documents stuffed down his pants. There is no way the Obama administration lets her get charged on this unless she's ticked them off and they just want to throw her under the bus out of spite. They may be liberal progressives in the Whitehouse, but I don't see them as vindictive enough to do that to Hillary and blow up the democrat party in the process. Now if Joe Biden was running, then I can see the administration feeding Hillary to the sharks, but right or wrong he bowed out so the Hill is all they really have.
Now if you had worked for Hillary during this time, you better be lawyered up already. You can bet that if there is enough to charge *somebody* here (and I firmly think there is) then I'd fully expect Hillary to be throwing as many others under the bus as necessary to avoid getting perpwalked. She will then plea bargain this down to some minor (non felony) crime and be out on bond seconds after the judge announces the amount. Now if you are Huma Aberdime (sp?) (AKA, Mrs Anthony Weiner AKA Carlos Danger) you best be thinking about how an orange jumpsuit is going to look with your hair color and who's going to be watching the home front (Keeping your husband off of Social Media under assumed names) while you are away...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It would be easy enough to run it several times and show the clip where she wins
love is just extroverted narcissism
And why was it Hillary's head on the coin?
Supreme Court nomination
Do you really want Ginsberg types deciding what's "hate speech" or allowing restrictions on political speech?
REALLY?!?!?!?!
You WANT Citizen's United to be overturned? THINK about what you're asking for - a government that's allowed to prevent speech criticizing politicians - but only that made by certain people that the government doesn't like.
You REALLY want that?
That's scary.
And before you say, "I want the money out of politics!" you better check who the BIG donors tend to give money to - TWENTY of the top 25political contributors gave over $1 BILLION virtually entirely to DEMOCRATS.
I'm not sure Obama puts that kind of stain on his record for someone he doesn't like or trust.
The push point will come when a FBI agent recommends indictment. Which should be soon.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If there was cheating, I doubt they'd have been so dumb as to rig it that obviously. Which leads to option 3: The people doing the coin tosses were in favor of Hillary and reported a pro-Hillary flip independent of any direction from the Hillary campaign
Don't forget the possibility that many supposed Bernie representatives in any position of power are really Hillary plants - I'd wager more than half of the coin tosses were ever actually done, both reps just agreeing Clinton won.
Hillary really wants to win and she will stop at nothing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3-3 is 20 times as likely as 6-Hillary. This sub-1% result is possible, but it sure seems fishy. Personally I think the fix is in, and Hillary wins no matter what at the convention, but it will be fun to see how it plays out.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Sanders proxies were undercover Hillary supporters. They have both placed agents in each others campaigns and things are much worse then we imagine.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sanders jumps right to mind.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm not sure Obama puts that kind of stain on his record for someone he doesn't like or trust.
Of course he will. This is business, not personal.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Will Obama give her a blanket pardon? I'm not sure. Especially if there are no charges yet filed.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ever been to vegas? Ever seen six or more black come up in a row at a roulette table? The odds are even lower for that to happen but I see it all the time.
"But, but, but roulette wheels are spinning all the time and there are multiple tables! You'll see it way more often!"
True, as opposed to coin tosses which only existed here, right? It's not that rare of an event, just shitty luck for Bernie.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Obama.
He brought change.
(Ba-dum tsh!)
How is it any less likely then any other combination?
By having only one way it can happen. There's 6 ways you can get 5 heads in 6 tosses, etc.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The Ds don't have any other viable candidates in the General. She is being coronated.
What are they going to do. Trot out Biden?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Gotta wonder who provided the coins?
What difference [pounds desk] at this point, does it make?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's actually not impossible at all, just a 1 in 64 probability that it could happen.
It just shows how close it actually was. I think that Hillary should be very worried about what will happen.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Then both Bernie and Hillary could both claim to have won . . . and lost . . . at the same time. Now looking over at the Republican corner . . . I think that the folks who have lost, are the American citizens.
Wouldn't it be cool, if some guy managed to crawl out of the Washington political poop, and declare himself as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", and get people emotionally enthused about this election? The way I see it now, folks are just looking for the "least worse candidate".
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Low probability things tend to happen particularly often in elections
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You need to learn a little probability.
The probability of a coin being flipped and coming up with a chosen side is 50%. Each subsequent flip has the same chance. When you calculate the probability for a chain of events you multiply the probabilities together. Therefore the probability that six coins were tossed and they all came up with Hillary's choice is 0.5^6 = 1.6%.
It does not need to be the same side coming up every time. It just needs to be the side where Hillary wins. The odds are the same.
Yeah, because the popular vote is exactly how the President of the United States is selected.
Nope, never been that way in over 225 years. Get over it already.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You might also consider using your browser's spelling checker to catch the most obvious errors.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"Biden remains on standby"
Wise words. Nothing matters except for the Convention. The floor can vote to suspend the rules, and then any nomination can be acted on.
Biden v. Trump goes to Biden. The DNC doesn't need the box full of live grenades they have for candidates now.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
For a homework assignment in a statistics course, half the class was asked to record the actual results of 100 coin tosses while the other half was asked to fake the same results by writing down what they thought might be a reasonable random sequence of heads and tails. With only a quick glance at a student's homework, the professor was able to determine whether the statistics were real or faked, with 90% accuracy! The giveaway clue was the occurrence of runs of 5, 6 or even 7 consecutive heads or tails. These are likely to occur in actual sequences, contrary to some naive intuitive notions about randomness.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The supreme court selected Republican Establishment George Bush instead of the people's popular vote?
No. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida government officials empowered before the election to make decisions regarding counts and recounts and submission deadlines would have their decisions stand.
Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.
Plus there is that other pesky detail that the "popular vote" was never the agreed upon criteria for selecting a President. It was always the electoral college and both sides designed their campaigns with that in mind, not the popular vote. If the popular vote was the goal then both sides would have run very different campaigns.
It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount. The election was "stolen" from Gore not by the Florida Governor nor the Florida Secretary of State nor the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court. It was "stolen" by the Democratic Party officials who designed and deployed the butterfly ballot that confused Democratic voters into accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Gore lost due to his party's error. Painful but true. To say otherwise is denial.
Or option 4. All coin tosses were on the up and up and Hillary's campaign just got lucky. It's not even in the realm of highly improbable.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
To be fair, it's slightly less than twice as unlikely as winning on one number at roulette (1:35 odds). For comparison, the current powerball jackpot odds are 1:292,201,338.
Getting Biden into the general would be some fancy footwork by the DNC at the convention given he's not been on the primary ballot anywhere. I'm not saying they cannot do it, but somebody would have to get Bernie Sanders to pull a Vince Foster disappearing act to make it happen or there would be lawsuits upon lawsuits in protest from all his supporters.
The only way she gets pardoned is if she has been found guilty. That takes either a trial and a conviction or a guilty plea. A trial would take years to come and I don't see that there is enough time here for her to negotiate a plea, plead guilty and get pardoned given how much time we have before the election. Plus it would further harm her campaign which is showing signs of serious trouble given she cannot soundly beat Bernie Sanders in Iowa.
Seriously, if she does get charged, nothing really changes for her. Yea, she endures some attack ads, but all she need say is it's a witch hunt by the "Vast Right Wing" which is out to smear her because they are mean, women haters or anything else that resonates with the base. It will only cost her a few votes overall in the general. It may cost her the election, but I doubt it will really matter in the end.
But who are we kidding.. She's not going to be charged by this administration.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Would it be easy to get the Sanders's campaign to not call foul loudly and on every News station if that were the case?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Especially considering the semi-rigging that is the 'super-delegates' that the DNC nomination process features. Between having a close ally as the party chairman to rig the debates in your favor (severe limitation on number, scheduling for times when people will be watching other things or not watching TV at all), and then swing extra votes from the establishment behind you at the nominating convention, it's still a lock even with Bernie Sanders wildly outperforming.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Odds of 1 in 56 will win you $2 in Mega Millions when buying a $1 ticket. So yes, she basically "won the lottery", or least "won in the lottery". Not in the way that most people think of when you say winning the lottery, though.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Low probability things do happen.
In coin flips and Options trading when it benefits Hillary, they SURE do. I always wondered why she didn't hit the Power Ball Lottery myself...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Oooh, 3 of 100 times you could get that outcome, quick, call the witch doctor.
Closer to one in a hundred.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
If the coins and flips were fair, the odds against either candidate winning all flips is 97%.
98.5%.
Out of the past 48 super bowl coin tosses, there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads, two streaks of 4 tails, two streaks of 3 heads, and two streaks of 3 tails.
Overall, you have the greatest probability of winning if you call whatever came up last time, somehow.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Fixing "coin tosses" is just one of many ways that Hillary supporters gamed the system for her "victory" - it's just the most visible.
Every hear the phrase "where there's smoke there's fire"? Well here's the smoke, and that's why it matters because it points to a lot more going on you can't see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've done this and can vouch for it.
When I would wait (upwards of an hour) the for bus after work, I'd sit on the concrete and flip a quarter to see if I could get down an art of forcing the outcome. I once managed to tally up 25 heads in a row.
Given that this is a proven unfortunate fact of coin flipping, I'd say that there's probably no way to make a coin toss fair without enforcing a lot of distance between the tosser and the landing surface, and enforcing a lot of spin during the coin's flight.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
First Microsoft, a major Rubio donor volunteers to count votes for "free", then Rubio gains a near 10% surge in popularity. And now Hillary wins 6 out of 6 coin flips....
These elections are gonna be fun to watch...
They certainly do. Every spin of a roulette wheel ends in an event with 1/38 probability (1/37 in Europe).
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
In terms of "classified" documents being found on it, so far, no one has said if any of them were ever "classified" at the time they were sent.
Yes, they have. Items sitting on the server in her house were from SAP material (above-top-secret stuff) that by its very definition is classified. We're talking about actual, current, operational intelligence - the sort of stuff that involves moles in foreign governments, satellite imagery from NRO systems, that sort of thing. The State Department has just said that there are over 20 emails just in this latest small batch that can't even be released in any sort of redacted form because the classified material in them is so sensitive. When she got the SoS gig, she signed the usual federal paperwork that says that if she becomes aware of classified material existing in channels that aren't appropriate (as in, government-controlled secure access systems) regardless of whether or not it is so "marked," that she is criminally liable for its mishandling if she doesn't immediately involve security personnel to secure it. She completely blew off that requirement.
She also didn't release any of them to the public, without them going through the proper channels
No, what she did was have her own personal staff (people without clearances!) go through 60,000-some emails and decide BEFORE ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT GOT A LOOK AT THEM which were or weren't "work related." Which means that even among the emails they eventually passed along, her non-cleared personal employees at her foundation were pawing through what we now know were SAP-level documents. Further, she took everything and burned it to some USB drives, and gave at least one to her NON-CLEARED lawyer, who then put it in his own personal safe. Crimes, again, at several points along the way.
In other words, all the steps have been followed.
No, they haven't. She explicitly went about conducting official government business, including the handling of Special Access Program material, on a non-secured private server in her home - all for her personal convenience and so that she could avoid FOIA requests looking at her government correspondence. So the very first step that should have been followed never was, right there. She never even had State set her up with a secure mail account in the first place. You understand that, right? She never even COULD have followed the rules because she chose to avoid even the very first step of following the rules. Then she failed the next requirement, which was to turn over ALL of her government-related records at the time she left office - again, something she chose not to do, and she had to get subpoenaed for the information and dragged the process out for years after she left office before delivering the information after she'd had her own staff handle it, destroying over half of it. That's another violation of the required process. The archivists at State are the ones who are supposed to decide what is, and isn't relevant from a record-keeping point of view. She deliberately prevented that step. She then stripped off all of the meta data and other header information from all of the emails she DID deliver, and provided them as context-less printouts, on 50,000 pieces of paper. And that's just her getting started on doing it all wrong.
Until someone comes out and says that document so and so was classified at the time it was sent and was known or should have been known to be classified by the person sending it and/or receiving it, nothing wrong has occurred that crosses into any type of criminal offence of state secrecy laws.
This has already been established. You're not paying attention. Inspectors General from multiple intelligence agencies have said that there was at-the-time classified material (including the holy grail, SAP-level material) running around on a non-secure computer in her house.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I wonder where this video of Sanders winning a coin toss came from then.
I stole this Sig
If they flipped the coin 3+ times in order to get the desired result, I think all those people in the caucus location would take notice, and someone would ask what in the fuckity fuck they're doing.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Different Coins. Different ppl calling them. In fact, some of the calls were by Bernie's ppl.
So, like all of the GOP's typical BS, here is another one.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So I guess that money really did decide this election! /rimshot
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Nope. Any current GOP candidate is far far worse. Even the economists are saying that the GOP's plans are nothing but lip service and a joke.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The joke
your head
-----
She's been president for 8 years already, 1992-2000
The odds are exactly the same as they were before she did so.
They are odds. They are not impossibilities, they are improbabilities and regardless of how improbably something is, its still possible otherwise you wouldn't be discussing probabilities.
The chances of this happen are not 'improbably' at all even. For every 100 tries, 3 will happen this way, given the probability statistics we have (yours here). If you know that you're going to repeat this task 1000 times, then you will probably have 30 occurrences of the event happening. The probability of this is 97% ... funny how it just reversed isn't it?
The problem when you try to talk about how improbably something is, is that you talk about it in a vacuum. You don't live in a vacuum, you live in an infinite expanding universe.
So you see, this is going to occur. Its going to occur a lot. Sometimes it may even occur to someone that seems to be some sort of [un]holy alignment for that sort of luck.
Worse still, the universe is freaking deterministic, so luck and probability aren't involved! That coin flip and the outcome of the election has been decided since the dawn of time when existence began! Wrap your head around that one and talking about probability will sound silly.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I know I don't want Sanders or Trump; I'm uncertain of Hillary. Bill *was* in the driver's seat, even with Hillary's influence strongly over him; what would we get with Madam President Clinton? It's not going to be another 8 years of Bill, which would be suboptimal, but relatively benign.
I favor Gary Johnson because his policies are relatively inoffensive (we have disagreements) and he's fiscally conservative. This is the least-harmful option I see on the table. Even I would make a non-ideal candidate: I have great economic plans with risk controls and contingencies to fix a lot of our basic problems, but I'm short on a *lot* of other stuff, and have no idea how to implement some of the things I *do* generally understand (education and workforce development--two separate things we currently treat as a unit--both come to mind: I know what to do, but not how to do it without wrecking shit). There are some things I don't even know how to address. We're putting a lot of expectations on our candidates, and can settle for "not too bad" at best.
Even doing *nothing* is non-ideal, and that's accounting for the President's entire body of power being his influence. As a Representative or Senator, you have the influence of one voice in hundreds; as the President, you have the influence of one *BOOMING* voice in hundreds. The media listens to you; the Senators listen to you; the entire god damned world listens to you. When the President speaks in front of your assembly, you had better prepare a response. If you can't convince your constituents the President is wrong, you're going to have a bad time holding favor; your constituents largely do not care about what the other Congressmen are blathering about.
The President makes things move. He doesn't have legislative power, but he has a hell of a lot of impact on the legislative process.
If I'm ever President, I'm allocating like ten million U.S. tax dollars per year to direct-hire some intelligent cabinet members. Somehow I'll make Congress give me an army a fifth the size of Congress to check my math. There is no way I could handle that job myself; I suspect this is true of every human being on the planet, and I know some folks who spectacularly outclass me in terms of raw intellect. House Representative is more interesting: I'd need a 40-year term to work out all the problems, and Reps get it as long as they don't fuck off too much. America doesn't need a 10-term emperor.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Explain why he's wrong.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Who had their own privately managed server that they used to conduct all department business other than HC?
any succession of coin tosses is arguably equally likely.
but hey, let's go your direction and do it one more:
the odds of a coin landing on a specific side are 1:2.
but then somebody has to have called the correct side to win. so, let's "compound" those events. the caller has two choices to choose from, so the odds of them calling the correct side are also 1:2.
wow, now winning a coin-toss is 1:4.
oh, hey, what are the odds that the person chosen to be the caller wins? well you have two sides vying for a win, and so two people to choose from. once again, the odds of the person being called also winning the coin toss are 1:2.
wow, winning a coin toss just got to 1:8.
ad infinitum.
also doesn't change the fact that if you practice it for long enough, if you're in control of both the toss and the catch, you can force the outcome. if you manage to master this art, consider the fact that the call is usually made while the coin is in air, giving the master of hand eye coordination, reflexes, or whatever ample time to adjust the height of the catch.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Your third sentence said exactly the same thing you're disagreeing with.
P (probability) = 0.5 (50/50 chance) ^ 6 (number of tosses).
Have a day.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If she's seen as the inevitable nominee, it's less likely that she will be indicted. But every time that BS proves himself as a viable candidate, the likelihood of Obama allowing an indictment goes up. Last I looked BS was way ahead in NH. This is how it works in a Democratic administration. When a Republican is president a special counsel is appointed in a matter of weeks.
Biden remains on standby.
You mean he'd be.. *snigger* he'd be... *snort*
Sorry. Ahem. He'd be - oh, wait, wait...
*dons sunglasses* 8) ...Biden his time?
YEEEAAAH
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
No surprise. No matter what side of the aisle you represent, you have to admit Hillary is one lucky son(daughter?)-of-a-bitch.
Really? Show me the tosses that were conducted on film that actually show the coin before hand, the results of the toss, and the coin flipping through the air.
Well considering these were 6 different coin flips in 6 different locations with 12 different people calling heads or tails, how can you group them together. It seems odd, but is it really?
Was it? Why would two people need to call heads or tails for each toss? You seem to be assuming much and modded up for keeping the faith.
One would expect that to happen once in 64 series of 6 tosses.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 Januaray editions of the Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
6 different coin flips ... 12 different people calling heads or tails
That could get confusing. Maybe just have one person call per flip.
how can you group them together
You can group them together just as well as you can group any other six independent events, such as six fair coin tosses done by the same person, with the same person calling heads or tails.
It seems odd, but is it really?
Yes, yes it is. But not so much that it's worth investigating for fraud.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I once rolled 7 double 6's in a row to win a game of RISK.
The odds against EITHER candidate winning all is 2^5 (the probability that throws 2-6 match throw #1).
The odds against CLINTON winning all six are 2^6.
it was stupid to operate one's emails like that, but it wasn't criminal. This is [yet another] partisan witch hunt.
Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate in the race. She's smart, she's a hard-worker, her policies align with mine. That's why I'm voting for her.
Donald Trump is an insane, impulsive narcissist. Ted Cruz is a fanatic intent on shutting down the government. Bernie Sanders is well-meaning but naive, more importantly he is the best chance for a Trump or Cruz to become president.
Except that anyone who isn't/hasn't been a high ranking politician with a party affiliation matching the current head of state would be sorting everything out from a jail cell with everyone investigating presuming they were guilty as F$*#.
Clearly this doesn't count because of the presence of mustache wax.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
She's too narcissistic to worry, she's special, worry is for common people.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I think Sander's characterization of this as a tie is pretty appropriate.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
True that. I have twice rolled three twenties in a row on a twenty-sider. In 35 years of game play. 20^3=8000, so I don't have a hard time believing a 1 in 64 chance.
(The first time, I was a guest player. The regular players demanded to inspect my dice, and when they found out they were normal dice, they were stunned.)
(The second time was with my regular group. They made me wash my smelly feet, and when I returned to the table, I rolled three twenties in a row. The stuff of legend... )
I can see the fnords!
God intervened on Hilary's behalf... definitive proof that God is a bitch!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
There have been a lot of people who believe that the machinery of the Democratic Party (party officials and such) want Clinton to win, are in cahoots with the Clinton campaign, and have been trying to rig the new coverage, debates, and elections. That may be a crazy conspiracy theory, but it is what some people seem to think is going on.
If you believe that, it doesn't need to be Clinton or her staffers rigging things. The people running the elections are already trying to get her elected.
Agreed. Also, it's be unlikely to provide a payoff worth the risk, notwithstanding last night's results.
I can see the fnords!
when we have such a close tie in such an important situation, whatever happened to using high technology, supposedly one of the hallmarks of our advanced civilization?
why are we tossing a coin when a whole slew of models of handheld calculators come with a rand() function?
it's pretty simple. somebody is picked to be the caller and they call high or low.
then you get a group of people (does 10 work?) to write a single digit from 0-9 on a piece of paper and stuff it in a box (UNfolded). somebody shakes the box and then the 10 people get in line to reach in and take a piece of paper out of the box without looking at it. as each piece of paper is drawn, a string of numbers is built up. you seed the randomizer with that string of digits, throw out x number of results and produce the next result.
if it's higher than 0.49, then the result is "high", otherwise it's "low".
not that damn hard to figure out. but these are the people who get into politics rather than something that takes intelligence.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
All this really proves is that everything you read on the internet is a lie. I.e. Hilary didn't actually win every coin toss.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl
Low probability things do happen.
Yes, but how often?
They outrsourced the toss to the NFL referees. They are really good at coin tosses.
Right-wing fans boiz, they can't tell the difference between a communist and a democratic socialist. Hint: Most European governments are actually democratic socialist. As are our neighbors to the north.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
My original post was for EITHER candidate winning all.
The odds against EITHER candidate winning all is 2^5 (the probability that throws 2-6 match throw #1).
The odds against CLINTON winning all six are 2^6.
She did...and made $100k on $10k investment in a day.
Funny how only the governor's wife gets invited into such investment opportunities.
Her fortune and her career and her fame are all from riding Bill's coattails. And she's the choice of modern feminists? I guess modern feminist leaders really are just democratic party stooges.
> Explain why he's wrong.
The lottery has MUCH higher odds.
This event is probably somewhere more along the lines of one spin at a Roulette wheel.
If you're comparing this situation to the lottery, then you're an innumerate idiot.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 January edition of The Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 292,201,338. The odds of 6 coin flips coming up as chosen is 1 in 64. There are seven orders of magnitude between the odds.
I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins.
For the Clinton campaign to provide its people loaded coins, they would have to anticipate that there would be ties and coin flips would be needed. Unless "just to be safe" the campaign provided each worker a bag of tricks to ensure they were prepared for every eventuality: loaded coins, marked cards, condoms with holes, Amway membership applications, etc.
98.4375%.
And, in fact, there now seem to have been at least seven coin flips, and Sanders won one of them. So now we're at a mere 94.53125%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The summary says both "at least six" and "all six" suggesting the story was put out before all the facts were known simply because it's a good story. Maybe Hillary's team have just been quicker to publicise their coin-toss wins.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
At last we may have reason to vote for Hillary.
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
A little over two standard deviations.
However, as Washington Post notes, "see the update below: there were other tosses which Sanders won."
The update states:
Update: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Even his initials are BS!
Sadly, of the available candidates, he's actually the best choice. The only thing worse than the choices we have for a democratic president.. are the choices we have for a republican president.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The last thing she needs is more conspiracy theories surrounding her. One part of her is probably glad she won all six tosses, but another is thinking, "Oh great, yet another #@!% conspiracy I gotta keep answering reporters about."
I bet Fox hopes she goes all the way because it will save them a ton of money by reusing 1990's conspiracies and spin. They could fire most their staff and just replay and reread the 90's.
Table-ized A.I.
Sure, that is the most likely explanation. I just think people are too ready to believe that because something is on video it MUST be true.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Obviously, the NSA put a backdoor in the random number generator.
On a more serious note, people can be trained to flip coins.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
When both sides of the two-party system gleefully work together to shut out any third party candidates or even any non-establishment candidates (like Ross Perot or Ron Paul), do we really still have a true democracy? Why are all the choices for this election so bad?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Something like a 1 in 64 chance right? But then if you factor in Hillarys reputation, the odds that something shady wasn't going on are probably about the same as the odds of winning 6 fair coin tosses in a row.
Yes? Though I'd MUCH rather have Bernie Sanders picking the Supreme Court justices
there will be even more desparate attempts by the DNC to fix this, and the insider party hacks, but at a certain point you can't stop a tidal wave.
They tried this last time, but you have short memories.
Didn't work then.
Won't work now.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The lottery has MUCH higher odds.
You do realize that the lottery, say Powerball, has 6 numbers, with each number having a far larger set of outcomes, right? The first five numbers can cough up anything from 1 - 69, and the sixth number anything from 1 - 26. *That* is why the odds are much higher with a lottery of that type.
By contrast, six coin tosses (each toss producing one of two outcomes) by contrast only has something like 64 possible combinations, max...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
I'd check your math, it's 1 in 64.
If a coin is tossed once, you can have 2 results
H
T
If a coin is tossed twice, you have 4 potential results:
HH
HT
TH
TT
etc...
there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads
Since there has been one streak of 5 heads, there must have been at least two streaks of 4 heads, and so on.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
GOP's typical BS
You heard it here first. Sanders is a Republican plant!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Sure, that is the most likely explanation.
No it's not. The most likely explanation is that something with a probability of (greater than*) 1 in 64 simply happened. Such things happen all the time.
*Sanders won at least one out of at least seven flips.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And for extra weirdness, Sanders wins.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
We understand the problem is your broken perception but don't know what to do about it except keep explaining. Someday you will wake up.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The Sanders people called 'Edge'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Out of the past 48 super bowl coin tosses, there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads, two streaks of 4 tails, two streaks of 3 heads, and two streaks of 3 tails.
Someone who keeps track of this kind of statistic has way too much time on his hands. It's way beyond the level of "this player has caught 3 out of 5 passes on a Thursday at night when the rain has just stopped and it is 39 degrees outside..." stuff that the color commentator loves to drop into the discussion.
ROTFL like it matters to them, ALL the candidates are their man.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
She's done this before and there were six ties.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
dude, the lottery analogy is just a way of saying that hillary was suspiciously lucky in her coin tosses. I'm not saying the odds of winning the actual lottery are one in twenty or one in sixty four.
If you're comparing this situation to the lottery, then you're an innumerate idiot.
Well, a bit overdramatic at least.
But anyway, my comment was to the guy who said "Go back to basic probability." There's nothing wrong with the probability arguments made - just the (qualitative) statement at the end.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier
You think they can't convince a simple coin to vote their way when they've already had a representative that was a d3?
Last post!
so tight in the Iowa caucus
Name of Bernie Sanders's sex tape.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Wow, what a "coincidence". The chances of that happening are only about 1.5%, me thinks that there is something shady going on. Not that it swayed the caucus all on its own but it could indicate that other areas of the caucus are conducting themselves in less than impartial ways as well.
So many people are talking the "odds" of this happening.
The odds of this happening are not 1/64, or ~1.6%. They are 63:1 (63 to 1).
1/64 is the probability.
Carry on.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It was a tie, statistically speaking. People for some reason despise that concept. There can be no tie, just more and more recounts will decide it, until the original ballots are shredded from too much handling. The margin of error was larger than the difference in votes. So 50 different recounts would have had 50 different results. A toin coss would have been equally fair and much less controversial (mathematically). So yes, I agree - get over it, nothing was stolen.
Speaking as a decline-to-state voter with no party affiliation, that whole affair just proves there are far too many whiners in both parties.
Technically it's not sub 1% but between 1% and 2%. Close to 1.5%
because he is batshit fucking insane.
Really? Even if we were to believe that, what makes him any crazier than Clinton?
Actually, the chance is 1 in 64. That's more than 1%, though not a lot more.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
A slightly unlikely thing happened
It's not "slightly unlikely". It's a one in 64 chance.
Again, it could happen - but it's VERY unlikely. It's just a leading indicator of all sorts of other things being done not nearly so visible.
Like, for instance, posters such as yourself on all public outlets trying to claim winning six out of six coin tosses is slightly unlikely...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Heads Hillary Wins, Tails Bernie Loses"
So what's the problem?
Seems obviously highly suspicious to me.
1/64 isn't really that small of a probability, especially given the overwhelming logistical effort that would be necessary to deliberately engineer such a result without (reasonable) suspicion.
And she lost at least one of the (more than six) coin tosses.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Let's just hope it wasn't a two-faced coin with Hillary's face on both sides.
Or worse, her face on one side and her tail on the other side.
Heads - Hillary wins
Tails - everybody loses
While I have no idea who Trump would likely appoint, and it might well be decided on reality TV, that's still better than the nomination going to whoever donates the most to the Clinton Foundation (yes, that's the other ongoing FBI investigation - blatant pay-for-play).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
It's a primary, so it's the particular party's issue to decide. If I understand correctly parties aren't even mentioned in the Constitution.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Yea, but the lady has "Lady Luck" on her side.. Logic/emotion says you press your luck when you are hot...
(BTW.. None of the above is intended to imply I think she's either a lady or hot in the way the terms are usually used on Slashdot....)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1.
The odds that a coin lands with a particular face up on ANY throw is 1 in 2 - including the first.
The odds that you'll call the correct face ("heads" or "tails") on any throw are also 1 in 2 (.5)
The odds that you'll call the correct face 6 times in a row (not that the coin will be the same face 6 times in a row) is 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5, or 0.015625, or 1.56256% (1 in 64).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Maybe they'll toss a coin?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I knew Hillary was a witch.
Sure, in a run of 100 consecutive tosses. Not in a run of 6 consecutive tosses .
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"she basically won the lottery" is a figure of speech. Something most humans grok. So, you're either a script or an obsessive-compulsive pedant. Either way, the odds aren't looking good for you. :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1/64, not 1/32
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Blah blah blah. Citizen's United needs to be overturned. Corporations are NOT people. Get over it already, republican shill.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I suppose I see that now in his original post, but I fail to see how its relevant to the topic at hand...
Someone obviously has yet to read the real facts as we know them. Of all the emails, not a single one has yet to be shown it was CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT/RECEIVED! I can't state this enough. Absolutely yes, you are correct there were documents found which are SAP level, but so far, they were classified as that AFTERWARDS. If you read what has been said, the state department UPGRADED their classification level at the request of the intelligence departments. No one has yet said that these were classified when they were sent. No one has yet said that these should have been known to be classified when she sent them or received them.
You are basically saying "look there are these classified documents here, she broke the law", The reality is "there are these NOW classified documents here, we need to do the normal sanitization process to deal with them, and investigate if they should have been known to be classified when they were sent." This is the state/point we are currently in at this moment, with people going over the data and trying to determine if a classification guideline was released to Hilary and her staff to inform them of the fact that kind of information was classified BEFORE the information was sent via email. No one has yet to state that such a classification guideline was given to her or her staff which cover the reasons for the classification of the emails in question.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
So does North Korea. China. Israel. Russia. etc etc. Access and actually using them in war are two different things. The country most likely to use nuclear weapons in a war is Israel.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You can't prove that it was corruption in action. All you can do is estimate the likelihood. But from other considerations I've say that the likelihood was a lot higher than 64 to 1.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Correct. Your eyes are fine.
Flipping the coin is only introducing randomness. The odds of getting A result are 1/1. Assigning a value to the result is the significant part. Assigning the first flip as a score for the Bernster or Hillarity gives 1/2 odds for that first event.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
That's not the problem I have with that decision. The problem I have is that the sealed the evidence and said that nobody could look at it for, I think 20 years.
Whether the direction of the decision was correct or not, hiding the evidence removes the appearance of honesty. There was also a lot of question about voting machines being tampered with, etc. But whether it happened, or if so whether both sides were doing it equally, is not knowable with the evidence hidden.
Because of that I'm going to assume it was a matter of "the fix is in", but without much certainty. But it's definite that the appearance of the fix being in is present.
I don't, however, make any assumption that the Democrats are any less likely to fix the votes than are the Republicans. Either party in power is going to have people in office who want it to stay in power, and aren't too picky about how. (I originally wrote "Any party...", but I'm not absolutely certain that that's correct. History provides a couple of counterexamples, not many, but a couple. There would probably more if I knew more history of local groups.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Will Obama give her a blanket pardon? I'm not sure. Especially if there are no charges yet filed.
How do you grant a pardon for a crime she's not admitting too and hasn't been convicted of? As off the rails as I think Obama is constitutionally, I find it hard to believe he's going to do something like this. His legacy means more to him than Hillary does and I don't think he'd willingly sacrifice his interests to keep her off the hook anymore than I think he's going to let her get charged and damage his administration by throwing her under the bus.
She's not being charged, at least before the 20'th of January 2017 she's not. If she is, this thing runs deeper and wider than just Clinton and the State Department, all the way up to the oval office and Obama isn't able to stop it, which I find highly unlikely. (Not that he's involved, but that he cannot stop it.)
Now, her underlings are in serious danger. They will be looking for a scapegoat to take the fall and release some of the pressure on this subject by giving Hillary somebody else to blame. If that's you, you won't see the bus before it rolls over you.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Gotta wonder who provided the coins?
What difference [pounds desk] at this point, does it make?
Because the coin has not provided the long form of it's birth certificate.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Apparently, the old Clinton magic is back.
I can't imagine voting for Hillary because I believe she supports the TPP, even though she waffled on it in the debates. This is enough to cause me to consider seriously voting Green or Libertarian or something. Not because they have a chance of winning, but because I can't stomach supporting someone that I believe supports the TPP.
OTOH, I live in a state that's going to go Democrat anyway, so it doesn't matter what party I support for president. All I'll influence is the popular vote. Perhaps if it might make a difference I'd grind my teeth out of shape and vote for her. She does have a couple of decent planks in the platform that she might try to live up to.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
FWIW, she didn't send those emails, she received them. Still not good, but not entirely her fault. (And did she know they were, or ought to have been, classified? Did she have any reason to know?)
I consider that a very stupid thing to have done, but it's not really clear that the state department email servers were any better. And seriously, email is equivalent to a post card. What is anyone doing transmitting anything even confidential over unencrypted email.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Posting this here so it gets more views.
The story is wrong. There were many more coin flips than just the 6 reported and Sanders won his fair share of them. The coin flips are a result of precincts that have an odd number of delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention. Say the precinct has 5 delegates and the vote between Clinton and Sanders was a tie. The precinct then sends 2 delegates for Clinton and 2 delegates for Sanders and the 5th delegate is decided by the coin flip. IIRC from the story I heard on NPR there are something like 11,000 delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention and it is at that convention where the actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected. So with 11,000 delegates to the state convention the results of a few coin flips aren't going to change much.
Of all the emails, not a single one has yet to be shown it was CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT/RECEIVED! I can't state this enough.
Actually, you CAN say it enough. You already did. You're wrong, so continuing to say it is pointless.
Let's keep this simple. Do you understand what SAP material is? Yes or no. Just say yes or no.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In "at least" six precincts, what does that mean exactly? To me that implies that there were more precincts where they had to decide by coin toss, which means there could have been another 6 where Sanders won. Anyone can cherry pick a sub group of tosses out of a bigger total that came out with an unlikely result..
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
It's highly suspicious, but far from impossible. It also appears to not have affected the result. (Or effected, if you care.) But it should be investigated, because in overlays the election with the appearance of corruption. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.
Unfortunately, I doubt that it will be investigated, and I will end up suspecting that this was one more example of corrupt electoral practices. And I expect this to be true whether it was honest or not.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Thank you. Do you have a link? I was hoping someone would/had investigated this. The link I found said that there wasn't any actual record of coin flips. (Well, it actually said there were several contradictory records.)
This seems a remarkably silly way to decide presidential candidates, even granted that these are lower level delegates at a party primary rather than governmental election level. OTOH, I've proposed ideas that probably struck other people as quite as silly.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Please link such finding that says the data was classified and known to be at time of sending. Every article I have found says so far that no one has found evidence that any emails were classified at time of sending:
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-used-private-email-send-clinton-now-classified-222700568--politics.html
"There was no indication that the information in Kerry's email was considered classified at any level at the time it was sent or if Kerry, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would have considered it particularly sensitive"
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-release-214246 " The messages are from January 21 and 22, 2011 and were forwarded to Clinton's private account by Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan"..."A State Department spokesman said that message, and the others deemed classified, were not marked as such when they were sent to Sullivan by other State officials." (so in other words, Sullivan was sent the message on unclassified systems and he simply forwarded to his boss, which means it was not Sullivan's or Clinton's fault, and is just the spread of a data spill event)
"The other message deemed "SECRET" in Wednesday's release is only classified in a technical sense."..."It appears Abedin, now the vice chairwoman of Clinton's campaign, got the transcript from State officials who downloaded it off the Internet and were debating how to respond to the leak." (In other words, the classified document was on the internet, yep, somehow that is Hilary's fault according to you).
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71316/justice-dept-may-probe-compromise-classified-info-hillary-clintons-email
"As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted"
I could keep on going on and on and on, but so far, there has been nothing that I have seen which has said the emails that have been deemed to contain classified information were generated or created by Hilary and/or can be attributed to a fault that she caused.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
There was never a recount that showed anything other than a Bush victory. You people are simply crazy.
The documents don't have to be marked classified. It's the information that is classified, not the document. Hillary Clinton knows this because she signed a non disclosure agreement that clearly states. This is the same NDA that David Petraeus signed, and was prosecuted for violating.
She clearly violated this agreement in multiple ways, and anyone who takes 5 minutes to read it cannot deny that as a fact.
FWIW, newspaper accounts seem to show that this story misrepresented the events of the day. OTOH, it also seems that there is no consistent story of the coin-tossing choices...that there were probably a lot of them, and that some sources report Bernie winning more of them than Hillary.
I'd like better information, but newspaper stories are what I have. And from newspapers you can find a large range of different stories.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And another that specifically refers to unmarked classified information.
So, you don't actually know what SAP material is. Why can't you just say that? Don't be embarrassed.
If it's SAP, it's born classified. It doesn't matter how it's marked, or if markings have been removed by her or anyone who sent it to her. If it's on her personal server, and she knows it's there, she's a felon. It's that simple.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Coin flips did not win Iowa for Hillary Clinton.
Clinton wasn't going to(and didn't) cheat to win Iowa and it wasn't decided by a coin toss. What most people don't understand is that she doesn't need to win Iowa. Bernie doesn't have a chance because he doesn't have any super delegates. The McGovern nomination showed the democrats decades ago that allowing a more ideologically pure candidate win the nomination will likely end any chance of presidential win. This is a lesson the republicans are learning the hard way. The republicans are racing to the right to win the nomination which will alienate the general public and cost them the election again(and again and again).
Pardon for what? She didn't break any rules or any laws. At worse she either sent or received email that was later classified. It sucks but it wasn't malicious in the least. The Hillary hate is really over the top and childish. People need to grow the fuck up.
Will Obama give her a blanket pardon? I'm not sure. Especially if there are no charges yet filed.
It's possible.
Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon *before* he was indicted over the Watergate scandal.
Reading the pardon, I can see it as a template for Hillary: it'll take too long for a trial to start, harms the "tranquility of the nation", "for all offenses ... committed or may have committed". The pardon does not even need to mention why it is being given (though Ford's does).
The best part about a preemptive pardon (before indictment) is that it stops the whole process cold. No need to further pursue an investigation if there will definitely be no charges filed? Stops the FBI investigation and saves the embarrassment of the spectacle of the DOJ ignoring the FBI report for political reasons. Kills any chance for a possible Republican administration to go after her too.
Hillary can go on proclaiming her innocence and no one can challenge her anymore.
The only problem with that is I (and probably you as well) do not see Obama willing to spend the political capital to do this, even if it is to save the election for his political party.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
...sure she did.
She'd slit the throat of a kitten live on TV if she thought it would win her voters -- she ain't above cheating, bribing the judges who tossed the coins, etc.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Nope.
People make that statistical error all the time. The question is whether to use one-tailed or two-tailed statistical tests. You are proposing using a one-tailed statistical test, but two-tailed is correct here.
The thing that seems anomalous is getting the same result six ties in a row. Whether that's six heads in a row, or six tails in a row, is irrelevant. What you should be testing for is the probability of getting the same result n times in a row, whether that is heads or tails.
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/m... tells more.
But, wait: what if you are about to say "Well, if it had been Bernie that won six times in a row, I'd accept it as chance, but since it's Hillary, I am suspicious"? Wouldn't that be a reason to use one-tailed probabilities?
No. What you just did there was to insert your own bias. The whole point of statistics is to avoid bias.
A good rule is, if you can't decide if you should use two-tailed probability or one-tailed, always use two-tailed.
--in any case, though, if the Washington Post is accurate, there were over a dozen coin flips, and Sanders also won some of the tosses.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
With practice you can win a coin toss most of the time.
http://www.wired.com/2010/11/s...
There is zero reason to assume it is a 50/50 chance.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
"Statistically speaking" is completely bogus in this context. Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.
Vote counting is an exact enumeration. "500 is statistically the same as 499" is nonsense and an attempt to deceive. If you insist on using statistical terms, I will say that the standard deviation of an exact count is zero.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
But vote counting is not an exact numeration! Run the same cards through an electronic reader and you get a different result. Even the ballots where you fill in bubbles will do the same thing. Now you remove those machines and insist that humans do the counting and the error rate goes up drastically.
Statistics is probably not the right word, I agree. Instead this is a measurement error. Two horses reached the finish line at the same time and the photograph of the finish can not discern which nose crossed the line first because the distance is less than the resolution of the camera. The votes may be a discrete number fut there's no reliable way to count them accurately. A logical conclusion would have been to split the electors equally (except that this would have angered the losing party and we'd have just as ugly a conflict in the courts). That's why people wanted electronic voting but that resulted in hurried decisions that caused many lousy machines to be purchased.
I would not blame Democrats alone, the Republicans were full of shenanigans as well. Each side felt that they were the pure honest people up against the rankest sorts of evil.
The difference in votes, comparing best result for Gore and best result for Bush according to results from a later count from news organizations, was about 750 votes. And still some people think that their votes don't count.
It was very educational though. Americans learned all about the weird ways in which we count votes, the petty officials that are put in charge of the process, the petty way that the "independent" petty officials will try to influence things, how little money is actually spent ensuring that voting is fair and properly run, etc.
It doesn't have to be marked classified at the time of sending. It's the information contained that matters.
Look at the first clause. It's very clear, and yet you continue to hide behind this canard.
Right, just like how Reagan and H.W. Bush were fucked the second Clinton was elected president, and pressed forward with the Iran-Contra prosecutions.
Oh, wait, that's not what happened, because these fuckers all play for the same team. The Republicans don't give a shit about Hillary's indictable war/corruption crimes, because 1) they've committed those crimes themselves and 2) plan on committing them again.
There is no way some crazy white guy calling himself a socialist is going to best "the Hill" like the unknown junior senator from Illinois did 8 years ago..
Obama was as pliable as Gumby. He danced like a puppet on strings and sold a lot of people on hope and change. I think he wasn't blocked like Bernie because he was all talk, no action. In reality, he delivered nothing that he ran on and to an outside observer from a policy perspective could have been confused as Bush's 3rd and 4th term. However to expect much honesty from a Chicago politician is probably the definition of gullible. Similar to expecting that Hillary, a clearly self serving person who has been well compensated by Wall St., will represent anyone in the 99%. Only Trump and Bernie would really shake things up, which is why I expect that they would be assassinated before they would be allowed to run things.
money supports the Clintons.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
The summary is disingenuous and misleading, though if you parse it closely enough it's not necessarily an outright lie. Clinton did win at least 6 flips, but she also lost at least a handful of the dozen or so total flips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... has video of one of the several that Bernie won.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
NPR talked to the Iowa Democratic Committee; they say there were at least a dozen tiebreakers, and Sanders won at least a handful. All the 6 of 6 shows is that you can cherry pick things to make them look fishy.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
"Well, d'oh. If you change the electoral process you can get different results"
Then your electoral process is deeply flawed. With a direct process like in my country, it does not matter how many time you partition and recount : sum are commutative and associative in the end you get the same final number. But with a represenative process you have shenanigan like gerrymandering and you can "win" election before the vote and recount can change the results. That alone should tell you haw deeply flawed the process is.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I love that this is marked informative.
Are you using a six sided coin?
The probability of someone winning all 6 coin tosses is 1/32.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate
There is always tiger in my home but that tiger is so afraid of people that when the doorknob turns the tiger goes and hides and he is such a good hider that we can never find him.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
But from other considerations I've say that the likelihood was a lot higher than 64 to 1.
63 to 1.
And what "other considerations" did you use to come to the conclusion that it is more likely that 6 apparently completely independent toin cosses, at entirely different locations, witnessed by several people from both sides were all rigged, than that a simple not-very-improbable 1-in-64 event just occured*?
*notwithstanding the fact that it didn't occur - there were apparently more than just six coin tosses and Sanders apparently won around half of them. So you've leapt to a wild conclusion based on nothing at all.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This whole discussion seems to be based on a false report. See the update at http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.... The original story from the Des Moines Register appears to be a collection of anecdotal reports with perhaps a measure of confirmation bias thrown in: once reporters were looking for cases of Hillary coin toss wins they found them. Even by late last night there was at least one official saying Bernie won the toss in her precinct, making the story at best 6 of 7, not 6 of 6. Today a party spokesman said Bernie actually won more tosses than Hillary. Since these were precinct delegates at stake, who in turn elect delegates to some kind of intermediate district caucuses, who in their turn elect the state-wide delegates who elect the Iowa delegates to the national convention, these coin flips are each of minuscule importance, which is probably why everyone is cool with using them.
An actual link to useful information? This is not the slashdot I have come to know....
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.
I'm not even American, and I know that's not what the actual investigations showed. They showed that Gore would have won under a state-wide recount, but that a recount of just the precincts that had obvious problems would have still left Bush with a very narrow lead.
Other, some would say civilised, countries have rules that say when the result is that close it is mandatory to do a recount by hand with scrutineers from all interested parties present to verify the count, so that there is not even the appearance of corruption in their elections.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them.
Why is this only modded to a score of three? I want to vote for Bernie, but the idea that Clinton was cheating at coin tosses was a little silly, and I'm glad to see the complete picture posted. Now, mod it the rest of the way up, folks. :)
TOSSER!!!!
The odds of winning 6 coin tosses in a row is (IIRC) 0.5^6 which is a mere 1.56% chance. I'd like to know if Hillary provided the coins.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
It's not exactly hard information to find.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
What's the difference between a run of 6 consecutive tosses and an arbitrary selection of any 6 consecutive tosses made in history?
Answer: Nothing.
A run of 100 or 1,000 consecutive tosses could have 8 or 10 or 12 heads in a row. It's just as likely to *start* with 8 heads in a row as it is to have a run of 8 in the middle.
What you have is an arbitrarily-linked set of 6 tosses out of the entire run of all tosses in history.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I see you have trouble following simple conversations. You may want to see your doctor about this.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Hahaha no.
The odds of EITHER Bernie OR Hillary getting 6 for 6 would be 1/32. But we are specifically talking about HILLARY, who is the candidate with all the shenanigans.
What you just did here is to insert your own a-priori personal bias into the statistics.
Your personal bias is fine. Just don't confuse it with statistics.
If Bernie won all the coins, it's not because he knows a guy, it's because 1/64 can happen.
Your statement "result X would show shenanigans if it favors candidate Y, but would be explained by random chance if it favors candidate Z" is a statement of personal bias, not a calculation of statistics.
Anyway, other posts say the 6 for 6 wasn't a the whole story anyway.
Yes, exactly. In fact, the best-documented results are from the counties that did their reporting using the election software (about half the counties reported using the software, and half reported by hand). In these counties, Sanders won six coin flips, and Clinton won one.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...
So, a more interesting question might be this: given that there were about a dozen coin flips, and Clinton and Sanders won roughly equal numbers, what are the chances that the six that Clinton won would be commented on by the news media, while the six that Sanders won would be ignored? Is this random, or is this bias?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There were many more than six tosses, and Sanders won some of the others http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/...
Well that seems quite obvious, doesn't it?
Indeed. But I don't think he'll ever wake up - such people would rather die than see reality.
Well she always used to say "We are the President." Bill was in office for 8 years and if they were both the President, so was she.
Good campaign point to use against Hillary with fundamentalist Christians (as if you needed another one): proof of witchcraft. Such a coin toss record in previous centuries would have gotten her strapped to a chair naked and dunked in a pond to see if she weighs as much as a duck.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
A lot of the young kids like Bernie, so he might get in.
Of course, he hasn't told them about paying taxes for the rest of their careers to pay for his free shit. I'll be taking a dirt nap when the bill comes due.
Please...the newspapers (or collectively media) are so incredibly biased ... and people are so uneducated about our own election process it boggles the mind.
Hilary "won" by a hair. If this was the superbowl then sure, declare victor and hand out rings.
It's not though.
Instead, she got 23 delegates to Bernie's 21. All of which is counted towards the overall total, of which there are 4714. Hilary has (drumroll...) 0.04% more of the total delegates than Bernie. BFD
It's like claiming a 100% increase in sales because you sold two bananas instead of one. I know Iowa is typically used as an indicator ... and it'll certainly go a long way to follow theory that when the media is already using words like winner while the difference between candidates is extraordinarily small.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
But...isn't that what we're supposed to do? Read one fluff news story (and in this case 'story' fits well) and jump to immediate conclusions?
When did we ever do any fact checking?
I mean, who even reads TFA these days?
Heck, people can't even read the comments to realize that 6 identical flips are 1-in-32 odds :)
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Hey Slashdot, you wanted ideas about things you could do to improve yourself. How about adding a retraction and/or additional information to a summary after it's been shown that the whole thing is a load of hooey?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's not exactly hard information to find.
Yeah, someone with too much time on his hands has a web page with the information on it. Thank goodness we have the interwebs so we can all enjoy such an enriching and valuable tidbit of information to make our daily lives just that much more livable.
I think I'll go watch some cute cat videos because I feel a bit depressed right now. And maybe later I'll go look at what all the people instagramming every meal they've had ate for breakfast. But wait, someone just reported the critical detail that he's walking in the park and saw a bird. Gotta go... this could be big!
The other considerations included Hillary's close connection with the Democratic party machine, and frequent reports of election fraud of one form or another by BOTH of the major parties.
OTOH, the story appears to have been wrong...or should I say highly sensationalized off of meager data where a fuller analysis of the data would yield a different result. Other reports say there were a lot more then 6 coin flip choices, that many didn't get reported, that Bernie won many (some reports say most) of them. Etc.
As far as I can determine there is no accepted as accurate even COUNT of the number of coin flip choices.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
What reason do you have to think she did anything criminal? I've seen a lot of lies and baseless accusations (you'd think the Republicans would have learned something after the first dozen attempts to show she did something seriously wrong by blatantly partisan means, but apparently not), and a distinct lack of hard evidence.
The email server issue needs to be investigated. It is being investigated, and it's too early to know how it's going to turn out. Apparently, it's never too early to throw around wild accusations.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yeah, but I'm still going to be suspicious at p < 0.05.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
FYI: Bernie only accepts individual funding, subject to the limits, etc. No corporate donors at all.
Take them individually and you find that something with a 50% chance happened each time, which is not a big surprise. Any surprise would be in the overall statistics, which could cover any number of different events. If each coin toss had a 50% chance for Hillary and a 50% chance for Bernie, that makes the statistics easy, and the individual circumstances do not matter. If we were doing a forensic evaluation, we conceivably could find that there were different situations with a systemic difference in results, but we'd be dividing the coin tosses into smaller buckets that way, not looking at them individually.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wrong and non-insightful on two counts.
First, a particular pattern in six coin flips has a 1/64 chance of happening, which is not sub-1%. Second, unless you think Bernie winning six of six would be completely unremarkable, you need to look at a two-tailed distribution, and figure the probability that either Hillary or Bernie would win all six. This is a 1/32 chance, which is very slightly more than a 3% chance.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I take it that Bernie winning all six tosses would have been completely unremarkable? Because if it would have been equally notable you have to calculate the chance that either Hillary or Bernie would win all six, which is 1/32, or a touch more than 3%.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, they each had a 1/64 chance of winning all of the tosses. There was only ever a 1/32 chance of SOMEONE winning all of the tosses.
How do you grant a pardon for a crime she's not admitting too and hasn't been convicted of?
The same way Ford did it for Nixon. What, it's OK to do if it's one Republican for another, but somehow evil if it's one Democrat for another?
Learn to love Alaska
Sanders vs Trump is more secure. Sanders is the better candidate for the Democrats defeating the Republicans. Hillary is too polarizing to get any crossover, and too boring to get a high turnout. She may defeat the invisible candidate of Sanders (last I saw an analysis, the other candidates were getting 10x or more exposure in the general media), but when the light is shined on them, Sanders is better for defeating the Republicans.
Learn to love Alaska
If she did wrong, what rule was in place that she broke? From what I saw on that, they are going after her for classified stuff because the "rules" against using a personal server didn't exist. The first witch hunt was for having a personal server. Then it was a Benghazi again, then there was discussion about classifications. But the reason it all started. The question of whether it was illegal to have a personal server. Was that ever answered?
The bigger question is, when will the hateful Republicans stop spending billions investigating the Clintons. You don't like them. We get it. But 20+ years of constant investigations, and not a single conviction just wastes money. Stop wasting my money. I don't like her. I won't vote for her. But I want the Repbulicans to stop talking about her. The only person they love more than her is Pelosi. Back in Peak Pelosi, I couldn't go an hour without hearing someone talk about how much they love her, even if they show it by calling her an evil bitch. Any woman with any power is hated. Don't you see that's their appeal? Nobody talked about how bad Carly was. She disappeared. As the bad politicians should. The effort and attention on the Clintons increased their power, not decreased it.
If Clinton wins, it'll be because of all the support the Republicans have given her, making sure she's in the news 24/7 for 20 years.
Learn to love Alaska
Who had their own privately managed server that they used to conduct all department business other than HC?
Ah yes, the, "who else did it" when if you remove "all" from your qualifications, the answer is "all of them that had email". The others before her with email used personal email for department business. Yes, all of them. They also had the official email, which was used at least once (though in many cases, only by an underling). She's the first who didn't bother with the double email that everyone else had done. But nobody else was investigated for extensive use of personal email for business. Though they *all* did it.
Learn to love Alaska
Go ahead, have Obama do this. It will have nearly the same affect that Ford's blanket pardon of Nixon, with the Republicans paying dearly though the next couple of election cycles. Ford lost his election bid for a second term in 1976 after the Republicans lost ground in the House and Senate in 1974 when the voters voiced their displeasure. If Obama does the same thing, only in this case for one of his underlings, not a former president, you can bet the voters reaction would be not be good for the democratic party, which is already facing serious decline over the last 7 years. He'd be launching yet another torpedo into his party's already sinking ship.
Also, please note that Ford's move was on very shaky legal footing and everybody knew it. It was never argued in court, so we really don't know if it would be upheld. Further, one of the primary legal theories used to justify Ford's action basically says "Nixon in accepting the pardon has effectively plead guilty to the crime(s) he's being pardoned for." I don't see Hillary being willing to plow that ground and accepting the pardon, nor do I see the Republicans just standing by and letting the pardon go unchallenged, especially given that it's likely they will control congress AND the Whitehouse come January 20, 2017.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Because Trump would push the big red button and not even think twice about it. Of course, on the other side, remember the codes will probably be too difficult for Hilary, so she'll just email them to herself...
So you've changed your stance from "it's impossible" to "it's impractical". So, were you wrong them, or are you wrong now?
Learn to love Alaska
What a crock. Only one calls the toss. Have you ever actually done a coin-toss?
If you want to be pedantic, neither of them call the toss-- neither candidate was even present. The county clerk of elections both flips the coin (or designates the person who does so), and calls which result goes to which candidate (or designates the person who does so). If the clerk calls heads for one candidate, they are calling tails for the other.
That's the way coin tosses work: calling heads one way also means calling tails the other.
What I find more puzzling, and probably more worthy of attention, is that the media almost instantly put out the story "Hillary won six out of six coin flips"-- but the best reported actual data is that, of the coin flips that were officially recorded, Sanders won five out of six against Clinton, and one out of one against O’Malley. (e.g., this report).
So, was it just coincidence that the media happened to get 6 out of 6 data points about Hillary winning coin flips against Bernie, but zero out of six data points about Bernie winning coin flips against Hillary? What are the odds of that? Well, the same calculation.
The original six out of six number apparently came from the The Des Moines Register, who based their reporting on what had been posted to Facebook (!). In a later story, they stated that the actual found of coin flips was "unknown".
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
OK, Yes, Obama *could* try it and my original post was incorrect... Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.
But, I cannot imagine that he would or that it would help Hillary in any way politically. It might save her jail time but at what cost to Obama's legacy and the democratic party? Not to mention that a pre-emptive pardon would very likely be adjudicated by the courts and IMHO found to be invalid. Just the spectacle of all this winding its way though the courts, regardless of the outcome, would damage the democratic party greatly, ruin the Clinton's public image forever and hand the republicans unprecedented power for many elections to come.
Think about it. First, Obama would NEVER do this until AFTER the election, most likely in the last hours of his holding office. There are two scenarios to consider. 1. Hillary is the president elect or 2. she's not. If she's president elect, a preemptive pardon would only shield her from criminal prosecution and then only AFTER she's no longer president because once she takes office, the whole criminal case stops. You don't put the president on trial in criminal courts. The pardon would be pointless (and stupid), plus it doesn't prevent an impeachment which might make hers the shortest presidency in history. IF she's just a private citizen, having lost the nomination bid or the general election, then the pre-emptive pardon *might* help her. The question though is would Obama do it? I really don't see any reason that would motivate him to do this, take the hit to his legacy and damage the party. Given the obvious friction between the Clintons and Obama, I'd be surprised he'd take one on the chin for Hillary unless she's got some serious leverage on Obama we don't know about.
For all I don't like about what he does, I do recognize that Obama is a smart guy, so he's not doing stupid stuff like granting a preemptive pardon to citizen Hillary who just lost the election, nor wasting his limited public good will granting President Elect Hillary Clinton a preemptive pardon that's pointless. If he does do this, he will have been forced into it to save his own skin, and made a stupid move that is unlikely to end well for him OR Hillary...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Because Trump would push the big red button and not even think twice about it.
Again I see no evidence to support this bullshit. It's one thing to have legitimate concerns about the sanity of a candidate and another to just make up shit.
Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.
Wasn't for Nixon. History disagrees with you.
I really don't see any reason that would motivate him to do this, take the hit to his legacy and damage the party.
You assert damage to the party, based on the example of Nixon, yet refuse to acknowledge it's "legal" based on the example of Nixon. Pick one. Either Nixon is an example for both or neither. But picking the one you like and ignoring the other just makes you a hypocrite.
As for why, it just makes sense. Billions of taxpayer money has been spent on the conservative conspiracy against the Clintons. Investigated constantly for anything and everything for 20+ years. Move on. As for the damage, it's not like she's president. He wouldn't do it if she were elected, but she won't be. So she'll be of no great importance, and not in the new government. So all the pardon will do is reduce taxpayer expense. Why do you want more taxes? Save taxes, pardon the Clintons. I don't like her. I don't care whether she goes to jail or not. It wouldn't bother me either way. What I hate is the billions of dollars spent trying to persecute the Clintons. Stop wasting my money.
Learn to love Alaska
Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.
Wasn't for Nixon. History disagrees with you.
Really? Last I heard, Nixon, who was never charged, never had is pardon challenged in court by either side. There is zero precedent to prove a pre-emptive pardon is legal or not except that Ford's action was never challenged. I don't think Hillary would be so lucky.
You may think I'm partisan, but what Hillary did with the E-mail thing on a private server IS illegal. Somebody broke the law, apparently multiple somebodies did. It was a violation of State Department regulations, PLUS given the classified nature of some of the e-mails, multiple felonies where committed. Was it Hillary committing these crimes? Sure seems likely to me. Many of the classified E-mail messages she wrote herself, or where sent under her authority as if they came from her. Not to mention that if she even SAW classified data in an unprotected environment it was her responsibility under law, to take the necessary steps to report and secure the information to the best of her ability or it's a felony too.
Now if you wan to believe Hillary's story that she didn't do anything wrong... Well, first you are going to have to pick which of Hillary's stories you are talking about, we are on the fourth or fifth version of this now.... You are going to have to explain how Hillary didn't commit a crime here. Is she incompetent enough to not recognize what classified information was? Was she so stupid that she not know it was being sent over an unsecure channel? You tell me, how does she get out of this, beyond a presidential pardon from Obama?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
..except I don't see any fuss being made about a Clinton campaign staffer impersonating a precinct captain, and being caught on video perpetrating shenanigans...