Re: Hope?

Posted by gepr on Oct 03, 2016; 11:29pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Hope-tp7587915p7587918.html

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" <[hidden email]> 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? 🤔😁
>>

--
☣ glen

============================================================
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