TrustTheProcess

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    768

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TrustTheProcess

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

    If true this is a big wake up call do those who think Biden is doing well 
    This model says primaries and incumbent advantage are the accurate predictors of elections not polls 

     

    http://primarymodel.com

    The PRIMARY MODEL gives President Donald Trump a 91% chance of winning the 2020 presidential election, with Democrat Joe Biden having just a 9% chance. Trump would get 362 electoral votes, Biden 176.  This forecast is unconditional and final; hence not subject to any updating. It was first posted March 2, 2020, on Twitter.  

    In 2016, when polls, pundits and forecasters were all predicting a certain victory for Hillary Clinton, the PRIMARY MODEL was practically alone in predicting Donald Trump’s victory. It did so as early as March 7 that year, putting his chance of winning at 87%.  http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full.

    It is a statistical model that relies on presidential primaries and, in addition, on an election cycle as predictors of the vote in the general election. This year the model has been calibrated to predict the Electoral College vote.  

    For the record, the PRIMARY MODEL picks the winner of 25 out of 27 elections since 1912, when presidential primaries were introduced. The misses are 1960, one of the closest presidential elections, and 2000, when the late count in Florida handed Bush the victory; still Al Gore wound up winning the popular vote.  

    Winning the early primaries is a major key for electoral victory in November.  On the Democratic side, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders split the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina while Trump handily won the Republican Primary in New Hampshire (the GOP primary in South Carolina was cancelled this year). 

    What favors Trump in 2020 as well is the cycle of presidential elections operating for nearly 200 years, as illustrated by the snapshot since 1960.  After one term in the White House the incumbent party is favored to win re-election unlike the situation when it has held office for two or more terms. 

    As for Trump, trailing Democratic contenders is nothing new for him. He was behind Hillary Clinton in polls at just about every moment in 2016 and wound up winning the election. This was by no means the rare exception that proves the rule.  The terrain of presidential contests is littered with nominees who saw a poll lead in the spring turn to dust in the fall. The list is long and discouraging for early frontrunners. Beginning with Dewey (1948) it spans Nixon (1960), Carter (1980), Dukakis (1988), Bush (1992), and Kerry (2004), to cite just the most spectacular cases. Warning: Polls in the spring are barely better than a coin flip to predict the winner in November.

    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Norpoth's model has accurately predicted the winner of every national election since 1912, The Statesman reports, except the election of 1960.One of the closest elections in U.S. history, John F. Kennedy bested Richard Nixon by 0.17 percent or 112,827 votes.

     

     

    lol, oan is not the most credible news source homie

  4. Posted

     

    10 minutes ago, Amit said:

    Yea, my public posts might seem like ok, but not so conscious girls freak out when I ask them to evaporate their ego. But I was anyway working with them, but whenever I go a bit hardcore, they just lose trust, now I'm trying to balance it though. I've lost sense of boundaries when I was trying for enlightenment, and it makes people afraid of me... 

     you can't just go on talking about egos around a bunch of normie women especially in stage blue. maybe it would work more in like stage green california, but even then, you can't ask someone to dissolve their ego lol. just be aware that consciousness work and enlightenment is negatively mainstream atm. 

    13 minutes ago, Amit said:

     

    when you're most truthful, you're the most empathetic, you're not hiding nor lying, putting it as it is.. Maybe it's too radical but it's true that there is a connection. 

    hmm, in some cases, but in certain cases, blabbering truth is not empathetic. especially with women. to be empathetic with women, you gotta just be present with them, show love, make them feel like they are being heard. 

    15 minutes ago, Amit said:

    Yea, that comes from desire of dominating to attract better females and you know ... Instant gratification is involved quite correctly, thanks well taken.. ?

    You can be masculine without seeing yourself as superior to women though... that said, there may be some cultural reasons why you feel that way that I don't understand very well. 

     

     

    I think this video would resonate with you my man.. good luck and all love from me<3

  9. Posted

    10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    The schools I went to in Southern California were already basically at stage Green. I got taught sex-ed in 5th grade in the 1996. So Green is already happening in progressive school districts.

    Actualized.org teachings are more Yellow/Turquoise, which is a much trickier thing.

    meh, I think there can be touches of green and some green values being taught in a predominantly orange system. When I envision green education systems, I think of a lower emphasis on competition and hierarchy, more emphasis on individual student needs and mental health, larger emphasis on nature, less rigid structure, less standardized exams, etc. I think we are far from it. 

  12. Posted · Edited by louhad

    9 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

     

    And it’s not arrogance if it’s true

    lol, that is the mindset of a debater rather than the mindset of someone tryna learn and grow. 

    9 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

     

    Are the screenshots below open minded? That was 9 hours ago, guy only asked a question 

    What’s closed minded is turning this forum into a echo chamber

     

    That dude already got banned for saying cringey white supremacist shit under another account name. he sent me numerous inappropriate and immature dms. and everything he posted under his new account was meant to be provocative and deceptive. even the post you screenshotted... it goes against this sub-forum's guidelines. 

  15. Posted

    @IJB063

    Quote

     

    2 people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of people in america.

    Amazon pays 0 dollars in taxes. 

    In america, the richest country on earth, we have people dying due to not having access to health care. it costs $3000 to call an ambulance. Drug price inflation is sky high.

    We neglect maintaining our infrastructure... it is crumbling all across the country since the Reagan tax cut precedent. 

    We have severe k-12 educational inequality. Also, college costs an arm and a leg. People who go to it are typically debt slaves.

    I wonder if Peter Schiff would be able to explain how libertarianism can solve these problems. 

  16. Posted

     

     

    10 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

    The scientific process

    hahahaha please show me one scientific study that objectively proves that iq is the best measure of intelligence. What specifically does it even measure?

    11 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

    It’s a stage correct tool

    lmao jesus

    11 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

    @KrossSure but it does correlate with civility, industriousness, pro social behaviour etc... that you would generally consider to be more conscious than your average person

     

     

    says who

    12 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

    That’s where women come into the picture

    Joking

    kinda

    ...

  24. Posted

    8 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

    @Extreme Z7

    That higher authority is even more subject to human biases 

    Look at history and government, look at whose in charge of these governments, the higher authority, the Czars, kings, dictators, fuhrers

    You can’t escape your nature

    yeah sure... without government enforcing subjective standards though,

    Who is to stop corporations from putting literal poison in infant formula?

    Who is to stop monopolies from being formed?

    Who is to stop price gauging for life saving medication?

    who is to stop Leo from kidnapping your kids? lol

     

    Also, I thought your phone was on 1%... I would like some hearty libertarian answers to the problems I addressed earlier. 

  25. Posted

    10 minutes ago, fluffy said:

    And is specifically stated that I don't believe in IQ differences in races, don't put words in my mouth. there certainly are racial inequalities that we need to address.

    You implied that the "liberal axiom" that "Differences in SES are mainly sociological in nature, not at all biological" is Wrong... can you see how that can be interpreted as a dog whistle even if it is preempted with "I don't believe in iq diff between races". If you don't believe in inherent biological differences in cognitive capacities between races, then you would have to acknowledge that sociological factors contribute

    also, just because someone can't be a fucking theoretical physicist doesn't mean they can't be financially stable, run a successful business, etc, etc... lol