Actinguy

It’s not us — it’s PP. (and maybe Admin?) This account was created 15 minutes ago. It’s political pundit.

It’s not us — it’s PP. (and maybe Admin?)

I actually thought of the original poem when I got banned, after initially agreeing with Patine's ban. My bad, Patine. Admin's overactive protection of a specific user of this forum, to the detriment of all other users of this forum, will eventually lead to the end of this forum.

Vote to @mlcorcoran

Cleveland has enough IP to cover it, if that’s what you’d like to do. In addition to spending IP, you’ll also need @swejie to agree to pass this as it requires attorney general approval as well.

@swejie

You guys will need a combined 3 IP.

That’s the spirit! ISSUE FOUR 1884 As Cleveland’s term in office comes to a close, he’s forced to take a public stand as yet another federal scandal comes to light. Will he demand the perpetrators be brought to justice? Or dismiss it as business as usual in these dark times?

Ok, quadruple statehood achieved! @Leuser spends 1 IP. President Cleveland and Secretary @swejie Adlai Stevenson each gain 2 popularity. @swejie gets 3 bonus victory points.

37 Spokesman for 11 hospitals and more than 30 clinics. Bachelors degree in corporate communications. I started my masters in Public Administration, but had to drop out to take the spokesman job. A moderate liberal, presumably. I float between ENFP and ENFJ.

From One of your statesman or faction? Both are valid options

Yeah, when you vote you can also play a card or spend IP (1 IP = 3 votes). As the last to vote, @vcczar can spend an IP to win this in congress.

He wasn’t wrong. People think anything less than a 50% chance means a 0% chance. He’s not responsible for people not knowing what a percentage chance means.

That’s how odds work. If something has only a 1% chance of happening, it may be defying the odds when it happens on the first try, but 1% is not “impossible”. Anyone who says there’s a 100% chance of either side winning is being ridiculous. It is not literally impossible for either side to win (2016 proved that). More comically, I was listening to one of their podcasts yesterday, and one of the guys (can’t remember if it was Nate Silver or one of his staff, group discussion) said “There is a 100% chance that Joe Biden wins the election!” Followed by “There is a 100% chance that Donald Trump wins the election!” And then jokingly telling his sound guy to split the two predictions and play the correct one after the election so he can be the guy who confidently predicted the exact result of the election. ;c)

@swejie is an aye. That's 23 aye, 25 nay. @Leuser?