**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

"Good? You're not good. Me? I always tell the truth. Even when I lie."

Picture, fucking, perfect.

[wufwugy]

"Last time you're gonna see a bad guy like this again."

That's right. It's the last time we're gonna see somebody do "everything wrong" while getting it right, while disrupting the corruption of the "good guys" that have been doing bad for so long.

[wufwugy]

"What a bunch of fucking assholes."

I couldn't say it better myself. Holier-than-thou assholes. Blowhards became that the moment they decided that Trump is their enemy.

[wufwugy]

Man I love that as an partial explanation for and about Trump (and the audience that points the finger). It's not a full explanation, as there are some very important differences. But I think there really is something to the Bad Guy/Scarface/Trump dynamic.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah plus they lost.

[BananaStand]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/21/opinio...art/index.html

Even CNN is saying the Democrats are nuts.

Irrational behavior does not respond to reason. It responds to aggression.

Vote republican in 2018.

[BananaStand]

So, the Democrats folded and the shutdown is over less than halfway through it's first business day. #winning #MAGA.

Now, I really want to know, from anyone on the left.....What was this for?? What was the point?

[wufwugy]

So, the Democrats folded and the shutdown is over less than halfway through it's first business day. #winning #MAGA.

Now, I really want to know, from anyone on the left.....What was this for?? What was the point?

Blumpf

[spoonitnow]

#winning #maga

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ce-abuses.html

I can't wait to read this thing

[spoonitnow]

It's a pipe dream, but I'd like to see Obama locked the fuck up over some of this shit.

[wufwugy]

I'm not so sure it's a pipe dream anymore.

[BananaStand]

I'm not so sure it's a pipe dream anymore.

If Trump gets re-elected, and controls at least one house of congress at the time, then some high ranking Dems should think seriously about fleeing to Costa Rica.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Politicians expressing shocked outrage over hidden information is not indicative of anything at all.

[BananaStand]

Politicians expressing shocked outrage over hidden information is not indicative of anything at all.

Well, with the un-hidden information, it's pretty easy to infer what the memo is likely to say.

And it's only hidden for the moment. For what I gather the committees and hearings and such that it takes to release the memo takes 19 congressional business days. Which puts the release in mid-March.

EDIT: TIL that there is such a thing as "congressional business days" that is different from regular "business days". Work harder congress.

[wufwugy]

Kim Dotcom, Hannity, others, they have teased major bombshells a bunch in the past. A big fat zero percent of them have been anything other old lady queef.

[BananaStand]

Kim Dotcom, Hannity, others, they have teased major bombshells a bunch in the past. A big fat zero percent of them have been anything other old lady queef.

What about the time Rachel Maddow had Trump's tax return.

Bomb dropped.

[wufwugy]

What about the time Rachel Maddow had Trump's tax return.

Bomb dropped.

IIRC that was teased in promos during the day for the primetime viewing. That's a different animal. Though that doesn't mean that's not how it would be done with somebody like Hannity, but that nigga cried wolf way too many times by now.

[wufwugy]

Politicians expressing shocked outrage over hidden information is not indicative of anything at all.

I tend to agree.

IMO any bombshell will be unexpected. Though there may also be a drip, drip, drip of related subject material leading up to that to properly massage public opinion for what's to come. But yeah, the more you hear about something like this before it happens, the less likely it is to be juicy.

[BananaStand]

Maybe the memo proves that Obama intentionally pinned the Russia stuff on Trump just to fuck him up. And when the memo is released, Mueller's little project comes to a screeching halt.

Crazy shit is....you will STILL see people on CNN that day saying "we should still investigate Trump/Russia collusion"

[wufwugy]

Who do ya think Pence will make his running mate in 2024? I'm going with Nikki Haley.

Pence defo winning 2024, probably by a significantly wider margin than Trump will in 2020. I'm still pretty surprised at how many conservatives and conservative-minded people just do not like Trump at all because of his demeanor.

[spoonitnow]

I'm pro-Nikki Haley myself.

[wufwugy]

How come?

[spoonitnow]

She's hot for an old chick, she's from the Carolinas and she talks shit.

[wufwugy]

All I want for Christmas is Obama on trial for his crimes.

[spoonitnow]

All I want for Christmas is Obama on trial for his crimes.

Obummer the bummer.

[forkitnow]

All I want for Christmas is Obama on trial for his crimes.

And which crime is that? Giving millions of people healthcare who didn't have it before? Do you know the number of lives the man saved single-handedly just from preventing suicides of transgender individuals by allowing them to get the healthcare they need?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Hey, some bait I don't mind taking!

Saying a President's urging of a policy affected anything "single-handedly" is misleading.

Presidents don't make laws, they urge lawmakers.

[forkitnow]

Hey, some bait I don't mind taking!

Saying a President's urging of a policy affected anything "single-handedly" is misleading.

Presidents don't make laws, they urge lawmakers.

If Congress could have done it themselves, they would have done it before he was in office. I know that you can't understand that because you're a part of the same cisgender heteronormative patriarchal power structures, which blinds you to how things really work when people like Barack Obama makes sweeping changes to actually help people.

[boost]

Hey, some bait I don't mind taking!

Saying a President's urging of a policy affected anything "single-handedly" is misleading.

Presidents don't make laws, they urge lawmakers.

lolwhatareyouevendoinghere?

Arguing with spoon's alt that is even trollier than his main account?

[wufwugy]

Telling when Spoon is trolling is easy. All ya gotta do is not assume he's mean-hearted and stupid.

[Savy]

Telling when Spoon is trolling is easy. All ya gotta do is not assume he's mean-hearted and stupid.

Why would you apply some strange moralistic view to him that he never abides by?

[wufwugy]

What do you mean?

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-election.html

I see two ways to interpret this:

1) Democrats are extra extra retarded

2) This story went through Fox New's spin cycle and the democrats real position is that "We don't need ICE 'cause the wall works so damn well".

It's probably not #2

[wufwugy]

Has Trump said anything about Kamala Harris?

You know he's most afraid of Oprah running because he said he would love to run against her and knows her secrets. It's a bluff attempting to persuade Oprah to not run. But I'm wondering if he has said anything about Harris.

[BananaStand]

Has Trump said anything about Kamala Harris?

A quick google search only turns up instances of Harris trolling Trump.

I think the chances of Obama winning a third term in a hypothetical 2016 election were zilch. To me, a Harris run looks like it would be approximately the same. Except subtract the penis, subtract a shitload of charisma, subtract a record to run on, and add-in some extra angry identity politics.

[wufwugy]

A quick google search only turns up instances of Harris trolling Trump.

I think the chances of Obama winning a third term in a hypothetical 2016 election were zilch. To me, a Harris run looks like it would be approximately the same. Except subtract the penis, subtract a shitload of charisma, subtract a record to run on, and add-in some extra angry identity politics.

I'm wondering if he's silent on her because he wants to run against her. Could be other reasons though.

Word is that she has major serious skeletons in the sanctuary city closet.

[BananaStand]

I'm wondering if he's silent on her because he wants to run against her. Could be other reasons though.

Word is that she has major serious skeletons in the sanctuary city closet.

Trump could fuck that up though. He's pretty much dared Sessions to take down sanctuary city policies. And Sessions doesn't seem to have much else on his plate. So if he is successful in getting a federal circuit and/or supreme court to declare sanctuary cities illegal (which they most certainly are), then that kinda takes all the bite out of any debate on the issue.

Sanctuary city policies are suicide if Dems attempt to take that message nation-wide. But Trump could pull that sword away before the Dems have a chance to fall on it.

Is it possible that he is just too good of a President to win a second term?

[wufwugy]

Trump could fuck that up though. He's pretty much dared Sessions to take down sanctuary city policies. And Sessions doesn't seem to have much else on his plate. So if he is successful in getting a federal circuit and/or supreme court to declare sanctuary cities illegal (which they most certainly are), then that kinda takes all the bite out of any debate on the issue.

Sanctuary city policies are suicide if Dems attempt to take that message nation-wide. But Trump could pull that sword away before the Dems have a chance to fall on it.

Is it possible that he is just too good of a President to win a second term?

Could be that the Democrats would go on offense in favor of sanctuary cities in that case. Which might be even worse for them.

As it is now, most people don't believe the Democrats support criminality. But if they go on offense in support of criminality, lots of would-be Dem voters might opt not to.

[wufwugy]

Surely if the Dems campaign for the removal of the agency that enforces immigration laws, they are committing electorial suicide? That can only appeal to the hard left.

They can't win with it in the short run, but in the long run maybe they can. They may be trying to indoctrinate Latinos and make a permanent voting bloc that gives them Florida and eventually Texas. There are several problems with this strategy, but the Dems probably don't see the problems and instead think they can achieve as much success here as they have with blacks.

[BananaStand]

They may be trying to indoctrinate Latinos and make a permanent voting bloc that gives them Florida and eventually Texas.

that is most definitely what they are doing.

The democrats have NOTHING to offer the middle class. They win based on two things:

1) Economic policies that benefit the lower class
2) Divisive identity politics that make republicans seem toxic, regardless of how sensible their policies might be

Immigration expands #1, and #2 expands immigration.

[OngBonga]

Surely if the Dems campaign for the removal of the agency that enforces immigration laws, they are committing electorial suicide? That can only appeal to the hard left.

[wufwugy]

Surely if the Dems campaign for the removal of the agency that enforces immigration laws, they are committing electorial suicide? That can only appeal to the hard left.

It's a really strange thing to propose, for sure.

[BananaStand]

Surely if the Dems campaign for the removal of the agency that enforces immigration laws, they are committing electorial suicide? That can only appeal to the hard left.

LOL....don't be so sure. The "hard left" you refer to is worth an easy 130+ electoral votes. That's more than half needed to win.

[wufwugy]

Many don't care in part because they don't know.

[wufwugy]

Local politics are local.


If you're looking for "which side" has gained nationally since the election, you look at changes in voter rolls. Republicans are winning on that. However, that isn't destiny. Changes in voter rolls mirror other sentiments, and they are fickle and can flip direction on a dime.

[Poopadoop]

You'd think if they loved Trump as much as you guys they'd be willing to vote in any R candidate just to show their love.

[BananaStand]

You'd think if they loved Trump as much as you guys they'd be willing to vote in any R candidate just to show their love.

Jesus tapdancing Christ!!

It's this kind of group identity mentality that is moving the democratic party further towards the radical left.

Do you not see how fucking dumb this game you're playing is??

[Poopadoop]

Jesus tapdancing Christ!!

It's this kind of group identity mentality that is moving the democratic party further towards the radical left.

Do you not see how fucking dumb this game you're playing is??

Sounds like someone's a bit butthurt about that 26% swing.

[BananaStand]

Sounds like someone's a bit butthurt about that 26% swing.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance.

[wufwugy]

Given that a pretty bad R is remarkably better than the best D, If I were in the situation to vote between them, I would probably.....abstain.

[wufwugy]

Statistics question: let's say a poll gives somebody a 48% approval rating with a 3 point margin of error. Does this mean that the actual result is anywhere between 51% and 45% at the same probability per each value?

[Poopadoop]

Statistics question: let's say a poll gives somebody a 48% approval rating with a 3 point margin of error. Does this mean that the actual result is anywhere between 51% and 45% at the same probability per each value?

There's a likelihood function that is symmetrical and normal-distribution-shaped for normal samples. So if the sampling data are normally distributed, the likelihood is highest around the reported value (48% in this case) and tapers off above and below it in a normal distribution shape. So, e.g., 48% is the most likely value of the approval rating, 47% and 49% are less likely but equal to each other, and so on as you fall further from the mean.

It's not quite appropriate to apply that to percentage data though, and the likelihood distribution should be a bit asymmetrical, and a bit log-linearish as well, but with values close to 50% the difference between the actual shape of the likelihood distribution and one that is symmetrical and normal ought to be negligible. Certainly values closer to the 48% will be more likely than values further from 48% regardless.

The 95% confidence interval used as the standard 'margin of error' is a bit non-intuitive because it relates to sampling, not population means. It implies that 95% of the times you sampled the data, you would get a value of the mean +/- the margin of error. Doesn't necessarily follow that the true value is in there 95% of the time.

[wufwugy]

There's a likelihood function that is symmetrical and normal-distribution-shaped for normal samples. So if the sampling data are normally distributed, the likelihood is highest around the reported value (48% in this case) and tapers off above and below it in a normal distribution shape. So, e.g., 48% is the most likely value of the approval rating, 47% and 49% are less likely but equal to each other, and so on as you fall further from the mean.

It's not quite appropriate to apply that to percentage data though, and the likelihood distribution should be a bit asymmetrical, and a bit log-linearish as well, but with values close to 50% the difference between the actual shape of the likelihood distribution and one that is symmetrical and normal ought to be negligible. Certainly values closer to the 48% will be more likely than values further from 48% regardless.

The 95% confidence interval used as the standard 'margin of error' is a bit non-intuitive because it relates to sampling, not population means. It implies that 95% of the times you sampled the data, you would get a value of the mean +/- the margin of error. Doesn't necessarily follow that the true value is in there 95% of the time.

Thanks. That makes sense.

[OngBonga]

"hill of dogshit"

Nice.

[Poopadoop]

Special elections first year after Obama 2008 win:

California: 2009: 10% win by D, 2008: 34% win by D, swing: 24% R
Illinois: 2009: 45% win by D, 2008: 51% win by D, swing: 6% R
California: 2009, 29% win by D, 2008: no R candidate (NA)
California: 2009, 10% win by D, 2008: 34% D, swing: 24% R
NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

Average swing first year of Trump was 17.7%, average swing first year of Obama was 5.5%.

Can you do 17.7% - 5.5%? I'll give you a hint: The answer is greater than 10%

[BananaStand]

Special elections first year after Obama 2008 win:

California: 2009: 10% win by D, 2008: 34% win by D, swing: 24% R
Illinois: 2009: 45% win by D, 2008: 51% win by D, swing: 6% R
California: 2009, 29% win by D, 2008: no R candidate (NA)
California: 2009, 10% win by D, 2008: 34% D, swing: 24% R
NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

Average swing first year of Trump was 17.7%, average swing first year of Obama was 5.5%.

Can you do 17.7% - 5.5%? I'll give you a hint: The answer is greater than 10%

It would be one thing if you were just ignorant. But I know you know a thing or two about stats, so the only explanation for your conclusion is a deeply rooted partisan bias and an outright refusal to entertain a thought that challenges your chosen ideology.

I feel like you already know why your analysis is dogshit, but for the folks watching at home, let me explain:

First of all, a 1% swing in Montana isn't nearly the same thing as a 1% swing in New York. DUH!! Secondly, a 17.7% average swing (as if that number means anything) in a handful of purple states is simply not comparable to a 5.5% swing in a handful of DEEPLY BLUE states. Double-DUH.

If I climbed Everest in a month, and you hiked Mt WhoGivesAFuck in a day, would you say you're a better climber than I am?

That's kinda the crux of your argument here. You're saying that Democrats enjoyed more success, but you fail to acknowledge the decidedly lesser amount of challenge involved in their endeavor compared to Republicans in 2009.

[Poopadoop]

It would be one thing if you were just ignorant. But I know you know a thing or two about stats, so the only explanation for your conclusion is a deeply rooted partisan bias and an outright refusal to entertain a thought that challenges your chosen ideology.

But you've repeatedly proven that you don't know a thing, never mind a thing or two, about stats. Which makes it hard to understand why you think you can criticize the facts. I mean I know you have no qualms with doing it, you do it all the time. But it's just amusing you keep trying to do it when you're arguing with someone who actually has a clue about these things and can step on you like an ant.

First of all, a 1% swing in Montana isn't nearly the same thing as a 1% swing in New York.

1% is still 1%. It doesn't matter if it's in MT or NY or on Jupiter. wtf are you even talking about here?

Secondly, a 17.7% average swing (as if that number means anything) in a handful of purple states is simply not comparable to a 5.5% swing in a handful of DEEPLY BLUE states.

You're finally right about something. 17.7% is roughly 3x as much as 5.5%

If I climbed Everest in a month, and you hiked Mt WhoGivesAFuck in a day, would you say you're a better climber than I am?

What has this to do with anything? Please explain your argument by reference to facts, not imaginary reductio ad bananums.

That's kinda the crux of your argument here. You're saying that Democrats enjoyed more success, but you fail to acknowledge the decidedly lesser amount of challenge involved in their endeavor compared to Republicans in 2009.

Oh is that it? That when you win a congressional race by 45% it's a lot more meaningful to lose 5% of your support than when you win a race by 20%, and lose 15% (or some such shit)?

Tell me, which of those differences is more likely to end up in a change ownership of a seat from one party to the other? The one that changes a gigantic lead into a slightly less gigantic lead, or the one that changes a moderate lead into a toss-up?

[BananaStand]

Which makes it hard to understand why you think you can criticize the facts.

Cherry picked results used to form a biased presentation does not constitute a fact

But it's just amusing you keep trying to do it when you're arguing with someone who actually has a clue about these things and can step on you like an ant.

This ant is still alive and well. I'm coming for your picnic!!

1% is still 1%. It doesn't matter if it's in MT or NY or on Jupiter. wtf are you even talking about here?

Do you really think anyone is fooled by this? You know exactly what I'm talking about here. Would you rather have 1% of a dollar, or 1% of a truckload of dollars?

You're finally right about something. 17.7% is roughly 3x as much as 5.5%

And one apple has 100x the mass of one blueberry. How does that affect the apple's ability to function as an apple, or the blueberry's ability to function as a blueberry?

What has this to do with anything? Please explain your argument by reference to facts, not imaginary reductio ad bananums.

FACT: It's harder for a republican to win in California and NY, than it is for a Democrat to win in South Carolina and Kansas.

Oh is that it? That when you win a congressional race by 45% it's a lot more meaningful to lose 5% of your support than when you win a race by 20%, and lose 15% (or some such shit)?

It depends on what state/district we're talking about.

Tell me, which of those differences is more likely to end up in a change ownership of a seat from one party to the other? The one that changes a gigantic lead into a slightly less gigantic lead, or the one that changes a moderate lead into a toss-up?

It's kind of a moot question since you're comparing congressional elections with presidential elections.

Scott Brown pulled out a stunning senate victory in MA in 2010. Does that mean Obama should have been worried about losing the state in the 2012 presidential election? Not even a little bit. Fuck, the guy ran against MA's former governor and still won the state easily in 2012

[Poopadoop]

Special elections first year after Bush 2 2000 win:

CA 2001: D 55% 2000: D 71% win, swing: 16% R
PA 2001: 2000: R unopposed
VA 2001: R 4% win, 2000: D unopposed (NA)
MA 2001: D 32% win, 2000: D 53% win, swing: 29% R
FL 2001: R 28% win, 2000: R unopposed (NA)
AR 2001: R 13% win, 2000: R unopposed (NA)
SC 2001: R 48% win, 2000: R 16% win, swing: 32% R



So far it's Bush2 +25.7%, Obama -5.5% and Trump -17.7%

[BananaStand]

Also....your numbers seem completely fake.

NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

I'm not even gonna look it up. There is simply no way that McCain won NY by 30% in 2008. Just no way.

[Poopadoop]

Also....your numbers seem completely fake.



I'm not even gonna look it up. There is simply no way that McCain won NY by 30% in 2008. Just no way.

Reductio ad bananum in action.

I'm talking about special elections after the general election here bud.

[BananaStand]

I'm talking about special elections after the general election here bud.

I know exactly what you're talking about. the Politico story you linked cited that the PA-18 district was won by Trump in 2016 by a 20% margin. And then, Politico compared that to a congressional election a year later where the candidate from Trump's party was polling 6% behind his opponent. Hence 26% swing.

Now follow me here...

You said...

NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

If we're comparing apples to apples, then "2008" must refer to the presidential election that year. The republican DID NOT WIN NY BY 30%.


Also...you seem to be cherry picking which special elections "count" in your analysis. For example, you seem to be leaving out a stunning GOP upset in Massachusetts during Obama's first year.

[Poopadoop]

I know exactly what you're talking about.

The rest of this post proves otherwise.

the Politico story you linked cited that the PA-18 district was won by Trump in 2016 by a 20% margin. And then, Politico compared that to a congressional election a year later where the candidate from Trump's party was polling 6% behind his opponent. Hence 26% swing.

I'm talking about the congressional candidates in the year of the general election vs. the congressional candidates in the special elections that took place in the following year.

In 2008, the R candidate in PA where the special election was held won by 20% (same as Trump). Sorry if you got confused by the fact the numbers happened to match.

If we're comparing apples to apples, then "2008" must refer to the presidential election that year. The republican DID NOT WIN NY BY 30%.

I'm comparing apples to apples, you're not.

The R candidate in the 23rd NY congressional district won by 30% in 2008; the D candidate won by 2% in 2009 special election in the same district.

Also...you seem to be cherry picking which special elections "count" in your analysis. For example, you seem to be leaving out a stunning GOP upset in Massachusetts during Obama's first year.

You mean the one that took place in 2010, > 1 year after the 2008 election?

Edit: Oh you must be talking about the seat Kennedy vacated? Pretty sure he was a senator bud.

[Poopadoop]

The shortcoming of the above analysis is it doesn't take into account the size of the effect in each sample. When these are close to zero, it would not be prudent to test them based on their sign alone.

More generally, with some reservations, one could do a one-sample t-test and compute the LR that way. A bit problematic since these are percentage data though and t-tests assume a normal distribution. You could transform the values into approximately normally distributed ones using an arcsine transformation.

Probably best would be to do a logit analysis but that involves a lot more work than I'm prepared to do.

There's also no reason to think any of these other analyses would give any less compelling answers than 23.5:1.

[BananaStand]

Scott Brown won by 5%. His predecessor won by 40%. Swing R +45%.

Now how do you quantify the significance of that particular election? That was a massive democrat stronghold. Massive. And Scott Brown broke the Democrat super-majority in the senate. That's MASSIVE as well.

Obamacare still got passed, and Barry still got re-elected.

Now tell me why Trump should be concerned that a republican with more jowels than fundraising lost by a mere few hundred votes.

[Poopadoop]

Scott Brown won by 5%. His predecessor won by 40%. Swing R +45%.

Now how do you quantify the significance of that particular election? That was a massive democrat stronghold. Massive. And Scott Brown broke the Democrat super-majority in the senate. That's MASSIVE as well.

Obamacare still got passed, and Barry still got re-elected.

Now tell me why Trump should be concerned that a republican with more jowels than fundraising lost by a mere few hundred votes.

You're deriving arguments based on a specific example, I'm referring to general trends. There's a difference.

[BananaStand]

You're deriving arguments based on a specific example, I'm referring to general trends. There's a difference.

except you forgot to include that example in your trend. Or rather, you purposefully excluded it based on new rules that you made up.

[Poopadoop]

except you forgot to include that example in your trend. Or rather, you purposefully excluded it based on new rules that you made up.

I didn't forget to include anything. The topic was a congressional special election, so naturally I analysed all the congressional special elections. The one example you keep referring to was a senate S.E.

But if you want, go and do the digging and make a post that includes all the senate S.E.s as well, and I'll add them to the analysis.

One thing that matters though is Trump has only been prez for 14 months, so to be objective you can only include S.E.s that took place in the first 14 months of other presidents you're comparing him to.

[wufwugy]

Now tell me why Trump should be concerned that a republican with more jowels than fundraising lost by a mere few hundred votes.

I like this "cuts through the noise" estimation: a tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of Jesus (Lamb), won. Not to be confused with the other tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of winning (Trump).

[Poopadoop]

I like this "cuts through the noise" estimation: a tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of Jesus (Lamb), won. Not to be confused with the other tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of winning (Trump).

If this account explains the other five S.E swings as well, you will have a good argument for why it is happening so consistently.

[OngBonga]

Trump is boycotting Oreos. So that means banana should boycott them too, poop should eat them more, and you should argue about it here.

[Poopadoop]

Trump is boycotting Oreos. So that means banana should boycott them too, poop should eat them more, and you should argue about it here.

Trump also wants to build a space army. I think banana should join.

[CoccoBill]

I agree with the sentiment. I did already leave for a few weeks some weeks ago, though I'm sure no one noticed. Decided to give it another stab, but have to admit nanner peeing over all discussions seems to bring out the worst in me. I'm too old for this shit, I don't need to be boosting my ego here trolling.