no shit sherlock!
what a great phrase in an auspicious time?
On 10/3/16 5:29 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
I liked the point as made by this post:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/
But even if we admit that the only purpose for the peripheral
candidates is to influence the actual candidates, we still have an
argument for allowing them to debate. So, the answer to the question
of why they're not in the debate really is because it's _bipartisan_
not nonpartisan. It's just another example of how the expressivity of
your language biases what you do/can understand.
On 10/03/2016 04:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?
On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <wallrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
This simulation ensemble conducted by *FiveThirtyEight *gives some
plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary
Johnson--not
Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some
non-zero
plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't
Johnson
in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to
find
out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? 🤔😁
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
