Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

  On 9/14/2013 at 10:28 AM, eugene said:

yeah it is a fail on my part but it's more of a fail on your part anyway because it looks like you still believe that this correlation (now that we're clear on its statistical significance) is actually a proof of your claim that "one dollar one vote".

 

 

haha, "i'm wrong but you're wronger!"

I'm still just loling at your ridiculous certainty about all this, it's as if you puffed up your chest and immediately tripped over yourself. my "claim" of one-dollar-one-vote is a silly rallying slogan, btw, and it's a fairly sarcastic, facetious one - figured i'd say that outright so you can stop suggesting that it's meant as a scientific hypothesis or something. in fact, let's just call it an "anthropological observation", that's a good defense, eh?

  On 9/14/2013 at 12:01 PM, goDel said:

You might want to get away from the causality/correlation discussion altogether.

 

Regardless of which scenario (power attracts money, or money attracts votes) is at play, there are a couple of things which could be argued as a given: money and power like to mingle; and they both (money; power) help each other. So whenever, in the game of politics, the money is unevenly distributed between the political players, the game becomes rigged. Whether it's the powerful players gaining more money, or the players who can be bought for certain votes, thing is, the game becomes inbalanced. When powerful players get more money, they become even more powerful (in a game which is close to zero-sum) with respect to the other players. And when votes are being bought, well, the game is not even played how it's supposed to at all (and it probably stimulates players to be bought more easily, because they make more money doing so).

 

Excuse me my simplistic views, but the whole argument about causality is, imo, not relevant. The fact that money is involved all by itself is problematic by definition. It distorts the political game. In the ideal political game, any voice would have the same weight. At the second money enters as a factor into the game, this ideal is basically lost.

good thoughts! I never meant for this thread to zone in so specifically on money-in-congress, but here we are (my apologies). Causality is an interesting part of this, ie does money cause votes or do interests pay those who agree with them anyway (as eugene suggests)? I don't buy it that monied interests would pay those people who already vote for their interests - what's the incentive? Why pay them at all?

  On 9/14/2013 at 3:28 PM, luke viia said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 10:28 AM, eugene said:

yeah it is a fail on my part but it's more of a fail on your part anyway because it looks like you still believe that this correlation (now that we're clear on its statistical significance) is actually a proof of your claim that "one dollar one vote".

 

 

 

haha, "i'm wrong but you're wronger!"

 

I'm still just loling at your ridiculous certainty about all this, it's as if you puffed up your chest and immediately tripped over yourself. my "claim" of one-dollar-one-vote is a silly rallying slogan, btw, and it's a fairly sarcastic, facetious one - figured i'd say that outright so you can stop suggesting that it's meant as a scientific hypothesis or something. in fact, let's just call it an "anthropological observation", that's a good defense, eh?

 

the point is that you believe(d?) that the table you brought up is somehow a proof of one-dollar-one-vote slogan, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. at least i was honest enough to admit that i overestimated my intuition in regards to correlation.

  Quote

 

I don't buy it that monied interests would pay those people who already vote for their interests - what's the incentive? Why pay them at all?

supporting people who would work for your cause financially is really that much of an improbable scenario ? (though im not even sure if donations are allowed outside of elections campaign)

I don't believe it's a proof of anything, where are you even getting this? I shared a link, but nowhere did I say "PROVE THIS WRONG, ASSHOLES! COME AT IT WITH YOUR BEST REGRESSION!" As I've said: It was just a table of data. It may or may not show that there is a correlation between receiving funds and a tendency to vote with the interests of the funders in mind. My post wasn't a claim of any proof, please stop saying it was (I greatly enjoy math, despite what you think about my statistics skills, and "proof" is not a word I use lightly).

And no, supporting people who work for your cause is exactly the point. But if they work for your cause without your support, why would you pay them? You are suggesting that these senators would be voting pro-military intervention anyway, without the funding.

You really think it's more likely that defense contractors would pay a bunch of influential politicians and get no substantial gain for their actions than it is that they would pay people who are otherwise on the fence about the decision? If so, I guess you're entitled to that belief, but it sounds like nonsense to me. Put yourself in the shoes of the monied interests. You'd be wasting money to influence people who already agree with you.

Who won the Washington State 2012 congressional races? Those with more money, without exception. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=WA

Who won the Texas state 2012 congressional races? Those with more money, without exception. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=TX

What about in New York/s 2012 congressional races? Those with more money, with a single exception. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=NY

Here's a list of all the campaign contributions for each senator, btw. http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator - a large number of these people are accepting major percentages of their funding from far outside their district - ie, monied interests from afar. I take issue with that. In light of the 2012 congressional funding links I just posted, doesn't it seem dubious that non-resident monied interests would be contributing up to 50% of congressional campaign contributions regularly? They are not the constituency, but they have more influence on the outcome of the elections than the constituency does! No sir, I don't like it.

well played luke

There's another conclusion you could easily draw from this: The campaign funders/interest groups might not be buying votes by paying for them, but rather, you might conclude that they are protecting the incumbents who vote in their favor by handing them finances. This sort of goes with what eugene was saying, I think: that the private interests are funding those who they know agree with them. When you look at who wins elections in the US (almost always the more ably-funded candidate), it makes sense for the funders to do this: if you fund the ones who agree with you, they will have a much greater chance at winning the next election, and since you helped fund their campaign, they may even feel a slight alliance or responsibility with you.

I guess I don't really see how that's better than buying votes, and hadn't bothered to distinguish the two scenarios in my posts. But eugene is right that the correlation in that first link (re: Syria resolution) doesn't say anything about the causal chain (money --> votes? or votes --> money?). Nonetheless it's IMO a pretty sad relationship between money and political influence in the US, that's all.

  Quote

And no, supporting people who work for your cause is exactly the point. But if they work for your cause without your support, why would you pay them? You are suggesting that these senators would be voting pro-military intervention anyway, without the funding.

 

to assume that senators would have no opinion in either direction if they weren't fed money from various interests is ridiculous. i mean, are people becoming socialist or neo-liberal capitalists only if they're paid ? ridiculous.

of course some people would have some opinion about the issues even without being funded, and if those people happen to be senators they'll vote according to their beliefs.

  Quote

You really think it's more likely that defense contractors would pay a bunch of influential politicians and get no substantial gain for their actions than it is that they would pay people who are otherwise on the fence about the decision? If so, I guess you're entitled to that belief, but it sounds like nonsense to me. Put yourself in the shoes of the monied interests. You'd be wasting money to influence people who already agree with you.

 

it makes perfect sense during elections campaigns where there is uncertainty about your candidate winning elections.

  Quote

Who won the Washington State 2012 congressional races? Those with more money, without exception. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=WA

Who won the Texas state 2012 congressional races? Those with more money, without exception. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=TX

What about in New York/s 2012 congressional races? Those with more money, with a single exception. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=NY

 

it's as if what we talked about in the last pages went completely over your head, it should be obvious by now that such correlations can't show causation and yet you post more of those kinds correlations to convince someone.

Sorry, you'll have to show me where I said that legislators would have no opinion without being paid (hint: I didn't), and where I said anything about those campaign finance links that wasn't a simple empirical fact. Otherwise you're just arguing with some stuff you made up - might be time to let the conversation return to Syria.

  On 9/14/2013 at 7:55 PM, eugene said:

it's as if what we talked about in the last pages went completely over your head, it should be obvious by now that such correlations can't show causation and yet you post more of those kinds correlations to convince someone.

 

Well, no, actually Luke is making the very legit point that campaign contributions decide elections. I personally think Citizens United should be overturned and then a la Occupy Wall Street, money should be stripped from politics.

Yes it is hard to isolate factors and demonstrate influence and corruption but I'm gonna step out here and guess that the numbers are higher than 0.

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:26 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 7:55 PM, eugene said:

it's as if what we talked about in the last pages went completely over your head, it should be obvious by now that such correlations can't show causation and yet you post more of those kinds correlations to convince someone.

 

 

Well, no, actually Luke is making the very legit point that campaign contributions decide elections. I personally think Citizens United should be overturned and then a la Occupy Wall Street, money should be stripped from politics.

 

no, what he's showing is that winners are mostly the biggest donations recipients, not that money actually made them win. causation!= correlation law applies here too, unsurprisingly.

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:22 PM, luke viia said:

Sorry, you'll have to show me where I said that legislators would have no opinion without being paid (hint: I didn't), and where I said anything about those campaign finance links that wasn't a simple empirical fact. Otherwise you're just arguing with some stuff you made up - might be time to let the conversation return to Syria.

i inferred it from this sentence:

  Quote

You are suggesting that these senators would be voting pro-military intervention anyway, without the funding.

 

you're hinting here that senators wouldn't be voting pro military if they weren't funded, as if the money is the only determinant for having one opinion or another and voting according to it.

Well, I never said it was a causal relationship, but let's try to make a case for it.

Let A = the act of receiving campaign contributions.

Let B = the act of being elected.

Association:

These two variables are related: The empirical record shows that an increase in campaign collections ∝ increase in likelihood of being elected.

Temporality:

A precedes B in time, therefore it is not likely that B causes A.

No Spurious Association:

This is always the most difficult part to reason through: It could be argued, for instance, that popularity alone could cause a candidate to receive significant campaign contributions and cause them to win the election. If this were the case, however, we would likely see a large number of first-time candidates successfully running on their popularity alone, beating out the well-funded candidates (their natural popularity or charisma gaining them votes), and subsequently receiving more funding in their elections as their popularity rises. Looking through the voting record for the past ten years, there is no such obvious trend to be seen.

The most reasonable counter-argument to a spurious association between A and B that I can think of is this: Look at the amount of time legislators spend fund-raising.

I'm not assuming that I've run through all the potential counter-causal variables that can be made here, but I do believe that it is unlikely that a third variable would influence so heavily the ability both to gain funding and to be elected, especially considering the amount of time legislators spend each day making calls to ensure they have enough funds for re-election.

---

I think that at least sort of makes the case for causation, though I never claimed anything about all that in the first place...

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:26 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 7:55 PM, eugene said:

it's as if what we talked about in the last pages went completely over your head, it should be obvious by now that such correlations can't show causation and yet you post more of those kinds correlations to convince someone.

 

 

Well, no, actually Luke is making the very legit point that campaign contributions decide elections. I personally think Citizens United should be overturned and then a la Occupy Wall Street, money should be stripped from politics.

 

no, what he's showing is that winners are mostly the biggest donations recipients, not that money actually made them win. causation!= correlation law applies here too, unsurprisingly.

 

Are you saying that it's been a coincidence that the guy with the most money always wins? If not, then the contributions are causing that person to win.

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:58 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:22 PM, luke viia said:

Sorry, you'll have to show me where I said that legislators would have no opinion without being paid (hint: I didn't), and where I said anything about those campaign finance links that wasn't a simple empirical fact. Otherwise you're just arguing with some stuff you made up - might be time to let the conversation return to Syria.

 

i inferred it from this sentence:

  Quote

You are suggesting that these senators would be voting pro-military intervention anyway, without the funding.

 

you're hinting here that senators wouldn't be voting pro military if they weren't funded, as if the money is the only determinant for having one opinion or another and voting according to it.

 

Not the only determining factor, but certainly one of them. Sorry you misunderstood.

  On 9/14/2013 at 9:11 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:26 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 7:55 PM, eugene said:

it's as if what we talked about in the last pages went completely over your head, it should be obvious by now that such correlations can't show causation and yet you post more of those kinds correlations to convince someone.

 

 

Well, no, actually Luke is making the very legit point that campaign contributions decide elections. I personally think Citizens United should be overturned and then a la Occupy Wall Street, money should be stripped from politics.

 

no, what he's showing is that winners are mostly the biggest donations recipients, not that money actually made them win. causation!= correlation law applies here too, unsurprisingly.

 

 

Are you saying that it's been a coincidence that the guy with the most money always wins? If not, then the contributions are causing that person to win.

 

no, it's called "alternative explanations", like already popular candidates attract more donations. if you devote a couple minutes to it and step away from "all our politicians are only in their positions because of money" perception im sure you'll easily come up with alternative explanations as well.

1) what if the mexican rebels beheaded 1400 people in the past 5 years?

2) what if there was a genocide in Rwanda in 1994 that left a million dead hacked up bodies?

3) well, they didn't use chemical weapons so its all good.

and although i degree with you about the election moneys,

  On 9/14/2013 at 9:11 PM, luke viia said:

Well, I never said it was a causal relationship, but let's try to make a case for it.

 

Let A = the act of receiving campaign contributions.

Let B = the act of being elected.

 

Association:

These two variables are related: The empirical record shows that an increase in campaign collections ∝ increase in likelihood of being elected.

 

Temporality:

A precedes B in time, therefore it is not likely that B causes A.

 

No Spurious Association:

This is always the most difficult part to reason through: It could be argued, for instance, that popularity alone could cause a candidate to receive significant campaign contributions and cause them to win the election. If this were the case, however, we would likely see a large number of first-time candidates successfully running on their popularity alone, beating out the well-funded candidates (their natural popularity or charisma gaining them votes), and subsequently receiving more funding in their elections as their popularity rises. Looking through the voting record for the past ten years, there is no such obvious trend to be seen.

 

The most reasonable counter-argument to a spurious association between A and B that I can think of is this: Look at the amount of time legislators spend fund-raising.

 

I'm not assuming that I've run through all the potential counter-causal variables that can be made here, but I do believe that it is unlikely that a third variable would influence so heavily the ability both to gain funding and to be elected, especially considering the amount of time legislators spend each day making calls to ensure they have enough funds for re-election.

 

---

 

I think that at least sort of makes the case for causation, though I never claimed anything about all that in the first place...

but you're not proving that A causes B here with this scheme you presented, B could be caused by many different factors.

anecdotically speaking, obama is a pretty good example of gaining popularity with charisma in 2008 i think and thus lots of small indiivdal contributions, but then in 2012 he received about 50% more cash than titt romney while the results were pretty close.

  On 9/14/2013 at 9:18 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 9:11 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 8:26 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/14/2013 at 7:55 PM, eugene said:

it's as if what we talked about in the last pages went completely over your head, it should be obvious by now that such correlations can't show causation and yet you post more of those kinds correlations to convince someone.

 

 

Well, no, actually Luke is making the very legit point that campaign contributions decide elections. I personally think Citizens United should be overturned and then a la Occupy Wall Street, money should be stripped from politics.

 

no, what he's showing is that winners are mostly the biggest donations recipients, not that money actually made them win. causation!= correlation law applies here too, unsurprisingly.

 

 

Are you saying that it's been a coincidence that the guy with the most money always wins? If not, then the contributions are causing that person to win.

 

no, it's called "alternative explanations", like already popular candidates attract more donations. if you devote a couple minutes to it and step away from "all our politicians are only in their positions because of money" perception im sure you'll easily come up with alternative explanations as well.

 

Yes I understand Eugene the most popular candidate wins, and the most popular candidate also happens to attract the most contributions.

I think me and Luke and simply saying "yeah, that's not what's happening."

  On 9/14/2013 at 9:18 PM, eugene said:

no, it's called "alternative explanations", like already popular candidates attract more donations. if you devote a couple minutes to it and step away from "all our politicians are only in their positions because of money" perception im sure you'll easily come up with alternative explanations as well.

Alternate explanations are great, and I welcome them, but that's not a very good explanation... It doesn't account for the fact that legislators spend hours every day collecting more campaign contributions, and it certainly doesn't account for the fact that the vast majority of election winners greatly outspent their competition. If they could win on popularity alone, they wouldn't need to spend so much. On the other hand, the explanation that spending more leads to a greater chance of being elected does cover those issues, and that's why I think it's more sensible.

  On 9/14/2013 at 9:35 PM, eugene said:

but you're not proving that A causes B here with this scheme you presented, B could be caused by many different factors.

anecdotically speaking, obama is a pretty good example of gaining popularity with charisma in 2008 i think and thus lots of small indiivdal contributions, but then in 2012 he received about 50% more cash than titt romney while the results were pretty close.

Yes, causality is very difficult to establish. Which is why it's kind of ridiculous of you to demand it every time I post a link, lol. You'll notice - again - that I never said it proved anything, that's all you, baby. Just thought I'd give it a whirl - clearly it would be next to impossible to prove there is no spurious connection in the midst of a message board conversation. I'm playing videogames and doing laundry ffs. I used this reference, btw: http://socquest.net/Q2/causation/causation3.html

Regarding Obama (lol @ titt romney btw), here's what he raised in 2008 and where it came from:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.php?cycle=2008

And here's the 2012 election funding:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

Both times, the guy who spent the most money won. and for the dang record, I'm not using this as "proof" that the money caused the outcome of the election. It's way more complicated than that but apparently I have to be really specific about saying this sort of thing or it can cost us 2+ pages of conversation

no one's disputing that they money can help a lot in the election campaign, the big question, to remind, is whether candidate's voting is affected by it after all. so it's no surprise that a lot of energy spent on trying to get donations, it's a bit of a snowball effect imo. you need to be attractive to voters to begin with, then this attraction causes people to donate, and when you have more funds you invest more in your election campaign and so it goes. in such scenario you're not changing your potential potential policy/ideals and such, only making them known to as many people as possible.

i'm not asking you to prove causality, i'm going against you presenting/hinting that correlations show causality or some particular practice. internet is already polluted with this 83% article and countless of commentators yelling something like "see, now it's obvious that our politicians are simply puppets of military-industrial complex" and the like.

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4060

guys what is life

how is babby formed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CQ_1GWn4w

conflag-er-ation

never have liked Bill Hicks, even if we'd probably vote the same policy. He just doesn't bring lols.

i feel like i'm being lectured when i watch his stand up.