Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 40 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090 ... LastLast
Results 2,926 to 3,000 of 8309
  1. #2926
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I'm pretty far from having a horse in this race what so ever, but I am getting irritated by how unashamedly the media is bashing Trump and making excuses for Hilary, and by media I mean the few clips on youtube I keep up with.
    It's almost as if: Trump is stupid! That's the joke! is enough to get you a laugh.

    At this point I want him to win because I don't think Trump wanted to win. I think all he wanted out of this was promotion for his next TV show and he got way more than he bargained for.
    Last edited by oskar; 10-15-2016 at 04:41 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  2. #2927
    Quote Originally Posted by BankItDrew View Post
    Wuf:

    *uses polling data to make argument*

    Trump takes a dive in the polls

    *says polling data isn't "capturing reality" *
    Uses polling data to help explain why they're suspicious. Predicts even greater suspicious behavior. Greater suspicious behavior happens.
  3. #2928
    So last week was supposedly Trump's rock bottom and this week was the beginning of his redemption, right? What persuasion tactics has he been using lately?
  4. #2929
    I don't think any of those things.
  5. #2930
    BankItDrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    8,291
    Location
    Losing Prop Bets
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Uses polling data to help explain why they're suspicious. Predicts even greater suspicious behavior. Greater suspicious behavior happens.
    If I quoted you every time you predicted a different candidate having success - it would make heads spin. It would be tremendous. Believe me. Believe me.
  6. #2931
    Quote Originally Posted by BankItDrew View Post
    If I quoted you every time you predicted a different candidate having success - it would make heads spin. It would be tremendous. Believe me. Believe me.
    Wise people don't make public predictions. Doing so is lose-lose.
  7. #2932
    No harm in predicting things when you're 100% right 100% of the time.
  8. #2933
    Last edited by Keith; 10-15-2016 at 08:49 PM.
  9. #2934
    Even though the wise man doesn't make public predictions, fuck wisdom.

    It's not a question of whether or not Trump will win, but by how much. I've got him winning at least 338 EVs 15% of the time. My question is if he will win Minnesota, Oregon, New Mexico, all of Maine, or New Jersey. All of which would bring him up to 377 EVs.
  10. #2935
    Bill Mitchell's twitter is a good one to look over if interested in why the polls are using total bullshit parameters. It's with things like pre-debate they used only +2 D but after debate using +9. And how their parameters are implying a turnout for Clinton greater than the turnout for Obama 2008. And how they're ignoring the best evidence of the race so far: that Hillary greatly underperformed in the primaries and Trump greatly overperformed.

    Outside of that, here's a my simple analysis for why the race is at the very least a tossup. The absentee numbers in Florida strongly (strongly!) point towards a Republican win. The rumors that Hillary abandoned Ohio are strong. From the beginning, Iowa was a lost cause for Clinton, even giving Trump big victories in oversampled D polls. Republican turnout in New Hampshire primary was bigger than Democrats. The second district of Maine has polled heavily for Trump.

    Where does all that put us? At Trump with 264 EV's, just 6 shy of winning. All he needs is to flip one state. Let's look at those states. Nevada is Trump's second "home state" and has polled suspiciously in favor of him more often than Democrats want to see. Internal polls from the Wikileaks of the Hillary camp have shown Colorado at worst a tossup. If Ohio and Iowa are any measure, Wisconsin is likely to turn red. The Michigan polls were off by 20 fucking points in the Democrat primary, giving Bernie a huge win. Trump hits the same labor chord that gave Bernie the huge win. Pennsylvania has been gradually shifting red and is reporting a big bump this cycle. Virginia is traditionally red and only went blue because of the major turnout of blacks for a black guy.

    The headline numbers of the polls are getting this one wrong. League of big.
  11. #2936
    This election will be at least like Brexit, where the undecideds broke Leave 2:1.
  12. #2937
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Bill Mitchell's twitter is a good one to look over if interested in why the polls are using total bullshit parameters.
    He certainly does appear to be objective.

    https://twitter.com/mitchellvii?ref_...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
  13. #2938
    Here's some of my favourites from this Mitchell guy:

    Isn't it weird that other than polls and paid for astroturfed Twitter Hillbots, there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of Hillary support. None.
    Where's the DNA evidence when you need it?


    America doesn't WANT to like Hillary. Trump merely needs to appear like a reasonable choice in a change election.
    ...and he's had months to do that....and he's failed miserably.


    Folks, Hillary isn't winning.
    Well, there's proof if there ever was proof.
  14. #2939
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This election will be at least like Brexit, where the undecideds broke Leave 2:1.
    And your winnings from the political cycle will stand at £0, a sum much more than if you actually put money on anything.
  15. #2940
    For a guy who is so obviously ahead, he sure is making an unusual claim:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37673797
  16. #2941
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This election will be at least like Brexit, where the undecideds broke Leave 2:1.
    You understand the outcome of the Brexit vote fell within the polls' margin of error, right?
  17. #2942
    I decided to respond to this finally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Still bullshit. The Koran is open to interpretation just as the Bible is. There are plenty of places where the Bible preaches violence towards nonbelievers, just as there are many places in which it preaches peaceful ways. The Koran is the same.
    This is a conversation worth having amongst followers of Islam. The issue, however, is that abrogation is king. The Bible says a lot of bad stuff, but it holds little sway because Jesus abrogates it. In the Islamic scriptures, the abrogation is even more resounding. To move the teachings of the religion away from Muhammad, abrogation would have to be broken. While this is probably possible in a technical sense, it is not generally thought of as a realistic idea.

    But it doesn't. It returned to the Mid East after the US/UK invaded Iraq, not because Iraq had been secularized. There were revolutions in other Muslim countries in the Arab world recently that had no religious motivations. There were not theocracies set up here. There's also the problem stated above that fundamental Islam isn't what you claim it is.
    A proximate cause of the the Islamic reformation of ISIS can be attributed to intervention. However, that is not the motivation of the Islamic reformation of ISIS. They are slaughtering other Muslims en masse because those Muslims are not following Muhammad.

    Again, it's only one interpretation of that text and not one accepted by most Muslims, even the highly religious ones.
    What highly religious ones? The scripturally devout adherents of Islam run interference when people question Islamic extremism. Have you examined how utterly disdainful Sharia is? I would be beheaded under Sharia. You would too.

    Oh well i that case why stop at Iran. I'm sure they want to take over the world with their 30k guys. No fear mongering there.
    The goal doesn't include taking over Iran with 30k ISIS warriors. It includes attracting millions of ISIS warriors and subsequently dominating the West as well as the apostate Muslim world.

    Again, you're acting like this 'reformation' is something natural and inevitable. Like a plausible outcome is all Muslims (or at least the ones left alive) becoming violent crusaders for their religion. That's where you're fear mongering. And it's because you don't understand what you're talking about.
    I am talking only about the religious belief itself. I am not against Muslim people; I am against Muhammad and Islamism. There is debate to be had on how Islam can be separated from Muhammad and Islamism.

    You argued, I believe, that taking 65k Syrian refugees was a problem because they were Muslims.
    That is not quite my argument. I argued that there is strong reason to believe that the Syrian "refugees" include a daunting quantity of Islamists, partly because of demographic makeup and partly because of ideological makeup and partly because of lack of scrutiny combined with geography.

    This would be funny if it wasn't so telling about your ignorance. That just makes it sad.

    Hundreds of millions of devout Muslims don't do those things.
    And yet, ISIS is killing them because they're not devout Muslims who follow the example of Muhammad.
  18. #2943
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You understand the outcome of the Brexit vote fell within the polls' margin of error, right?
    I have no opinion on this. Undecideds broke 2 to 1.
  19. #2944
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    For a guy who is so obviously ahead, he sure is making an unusual claim:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37673797
    Quality tactic. If you're not expecting rigging, you're not paying attention. How many Bernies does a Hillary have to cheat out of a nomination to get people thinking a Hillary might cheat again?
  20. #2945
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    And your winnings from the political cycle will stand at £0, a sum much more than if you actually put money on anything.
    I don't understand. If you're getting at me putting money this, I don't put money on things I care about anymore because it makes the experience miserable. Only bet on what you don't give the dog's bollocks about.
  21. #2946
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Here's some of my favourites from this Mitchell guy:



    Where's the DNA evidence when you need it?




    ...and he's had months to do that....and he's failed miserably.




    Well, there's proof if there ever was proof.
    fwiw those tweets were all after a long slew he did regarding the poll methodology.
  22. #2947
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have no opinion on this. Undecideds broke 2 to 1.
    According to whom?
  23. #2948
    Wait, I have bet on this election. My avatar. Hey Mr Savy you can get in on this too. I'll give you 4:1. My 4 months of your avatar choice to your 1 month of my avatar choice.

    Trump is so losing. I can't believe how badly. You'll never find a better bet. Trump already lost. Get in on the ground floor.
  24. #2949
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    According to whom?
    Me.
  25. #2950
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Me.
    That's what I thought.
  26. #2951
    It's based on my eyeballing of the tracking polls. It's very close to 2:1. Could have been 3:1 or 1.8:1
  27. #2952
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That's what I thought.
    How about this, according to Bloomberg's tracking, one month out, Leave 42%, Remain 48%. Final results Leave (IIRC) 52%, Remain 48.

    So, if I'd like, I could say way more than 2:1
  28. #2953
    Hey Ong, check out Mike Cernovich twitter. I guarantee anybody who reads at least a hundred of his tweets will forever have their views changed.
  29. #2954
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's based on my eyeballing of the tracking polls.
    It's as likely the polls were off by a percentage or three margin of error as that the undecideds mostly went one way.
  30. #2955
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's as likely the polls were off by a percentage or three margin of error as that the undecideds mostly went one way.
    Interesting. Explain.

    I'm not arguing with you, honestly. This is a novel idea to me.
  31. #2956
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How about this, according to Bloomberg's tracking, one month out, Leave 42%, Remain 48%. Final results Leave (IIRC) 52%, Remain 48.

    So, if I'd like, I could say way more than 2:1
    The day before the vote, it was Remain up by 2%. Leave won by 2%. That there was some error in the polling is one explanation. There could also have been a greater number of undecideds that went Leave on the last day. We'll never know. But saying it was 2:1 or 1.8:1 or 3:1 has no credence since we don't know how much the polling numbers were off in the first place.
  32. #2957
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The day before the vote, it was Remain up by 2%. Leave won by 2%. That there was some error in the polling is one explanation. There could also have been a greater number of undecideds that went Leave on the last day. We'll never know. But saying it was 2:1 or 1.8:1 or 3:1 has no credence since we don't know how much the polling numbers were off in the first place.
    Origin point comparison is sorta arbitrary. Generally when we say "undecideds broke at such n such rate" it is referring to an origin before the eventual final results consolidated and when the undecided vote began to decrease. For Brexit, the one month out mark is the standard. Granted, that origin shows the lowest effect. Five months out would show a much bigger effect.
  33. #2958
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Interesting. Explain.

    I'm not arguing with you, honestly. This is a novel idea to me.
    You can't take the polling numbers as 100% accurate; they're only an estimate. Sometimes they're off because of systematic bias (bad poll-taking), other times because of random error. So if you don't know what the true % of Leave/Remain/Undecided voters were to begin with, you can't say anything really about what undecideds decided to do.
  34. #2959
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You can't take the polling numbers as 100% accurate; they're only an estimate. Sometimes they're off because of systematic bias (bad poll-taking), other times because of random error. So if you don't know what the true % of Leave/Remain/Undecided voters were to begin with, you can't say anything really about what undecideds decided to do.
    Okay, cool, that's true. My statements are assuming the polls are showing the general level of undecided. Within that frame, undecideds broke such and such percent. However, if we're assuming the polls are so egregiously inaccurate that they don't even show undecided trends, then I wouldn't make that argument. I would then make the argument that polls show close to little next to nothing.
  35. #2960
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Origin point comparison is sorta arbitrary. Generally when we say "undecideds broke at such n such rate" it is referring to an origin before the eventual final results consolidated and when the undecided vote began to decrease. For Brexit, the one month out mark is the standard. Granted, that origin shows the lowest effect. Five months out would show a much bigger effect.
    I follow you. But you can't assume that all the undecideds deciding must have changed things, there would also likely have been a large number of Remain people switching to Leave. And for that matter, there was also some number (much smaller obv.) of Leave people switching to Remain. The polls and final results can't tell you which people moved from one of those three camps to another, only where they ended up. And that's complicated by the fact the polls are only estimates in the first place.
  36. #2961
    That's certainly true. We really only assume that it was Undecided turning Leave instead of Remain turning Leave since it makes more sense. Though, it was likely a mix of both. Regardless, a useful way of describing it is that Undecided broke for Leave. Or maybe it isn't useful at all. I'll admit I picked up that idea from mainstream media a while back, and, well, the MSM is total garbage, so maybe it was wrong about that one.
  37. #2962
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Okay, cool, that's true. My statements are assuming the polls are showing the general level of undecided. Within that frame, undecideds broke such and such percent. However, if we're assuming the polls are so egregiously inaccurate that they don't even show undecided trends, then I wouldn't make that argument. I would then make the argument that polls show close to little next to nothing.
    They seemed to have been off in the case of Brexit but whether it was 'egregious' or not is open to debate. I think it was 7/10 polls that were outside the margin of error but an overall 2% error is not completely outrageous or anything.

    The polls being "wrong" only caused a stink there because the result was so close to 50% and the polls just happened to be on the other side of the threshold than the result was. If the result was 60/40 and the polls had said 62/38 no-one would have gotten excited about the 2% error *. The polls are always going to be "wrong" to some extent, they're never going to nail it exactly.

    * Edit: it's 2% error not 4% as I said at first - I'm tired.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-16-2016 at 09:32 PM.
  38. #2963
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That's certainly true. We really only assume that it was Undecided turning Leave instead of Remain turning Leave since it makes more sense. Though, it was likely a mix of both. Regardless, a useful way of describing it is that Undecided broke for Leave. Or maybe it isn't useful at all. I'll admit I picked up that idea from mainstream media a while back, and, well, the MSM is total garbage, so maybe it was wrong about that one.
    It's a common way of describing it but it's fuzzy statistics because it starts with fuzzy numbers (the polls) that we don't know how accurate they are. And you can't do much with fuzzy numbers except make more fuzzy numbers.
  39. #2964
    Keep in mind that if the disfavored outcome is far ahead, the polls are unlikely to show it. Polls always show the favorite winning big or a tossup, even when the favorite is losing big. This shows what I think is best described as the human error involved in polling.
  40. #2965
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Wait, I have bet on this election. My avatar. Hey Mr Savy you can get in on this too. I'll give you 4:1. My 4 months of your avatar choice to your 1 month of my avatar choice.

    Trump is so losing. I can't believe how badly. You'll never find a better bet. Trump already lost. Get in on the ground floor.
    If I got any benefit from this bet I would take it but alas I do not.
  41. #2966
    Your avatar would be amazing. That's the Savy Benefit.
  42. #2967
  43. #2968
    Media is rigged.
  44. #2969
    USC Dornsife/LA Times poll confirmed fucked:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/up...ages.html?_r=1
  45. #2970
    Yes but that bias, like all bias in polling and life, hurts Trump more than Clinton. I'd explain but Wuf is probably mid reply & his response will clear it all up.
  46. #2971
    IIRC the NYT issued a correction regarding that article. The effect by one black youth is not what they made it out to be. IIRC it's several black youths.
  47. #2972
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Yes but that bias, like all bias in polling and life, hurts Trump more than Clinton.
    I like things like this. Explain if you'd like.
  48. #2973
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    IIRC the NYT issued a correction regarding that article. The effect by one black youth is not what they made it out to be. IIRC it's several black youths.

    You might be thinking of this article, with the correction at the bottom

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/up...r-problem.html
  49. #2974
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I like things like this. Explain if you'd like.
    Me too. I'd love to hear Savy explain what he really meant by this.
  50. #2975
    if we had access to true facts, i think that the period from right before the 2nd debate up to now would show trump's biggest gain in support since just after the beginning. some say "but the polls", and i say "yes the polls. the polls that had to significantly increase their weighting biases to give hillary a lead"

    debate 2 was a one-sided beating. only mules think otherwise. unless any of youse reading this think otherwise, you're a unicorn. people care very much about the whole media bais/wikileaks/okeefe stuff that has been happening lately. it's the perfect "fake because"
  51. #2976
    A mere jump from 60% to 70% of R support for Trump by non-college-educated whites would result in a landslide win. This is so easily in the cards, and it's not something the polls would come close to catching with current methodology. The signs on the ground suggest very strongly towards this monster vote. The blue collar love for him is unprecedented for any candidate for decades. His rallies are enormous. Reports coming from suburbs and rural areas show staggering support for Trump. The entire Midwest excluding Illinois is going Trump.

    Not to mention that the Hillary turnout will be greatly depressed. Nobody likes her. Meanwhile the hoaxing pollsters are predicting Democrat turnout will be 5 points higher than it was in 2008. They're either shameless or unable to see nonsense. I'm thinking shameless.
  52. #2977
    This sort of data is probably far more robust at predicting the general election outcome than polls:

  53. #2978
    She is dying on her arse.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #2979
    going gangster in the previous debate and presidential in this final debate is such a winning strategy.
  55. #2980
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Boring Debate. If you look at it from an entertainment aspect, Trump won. But if you look at it from a "this is the last head to head debate till the election", Clinton won. Its the home stretch, she didnt say anything stupid, she didnt get beat up too bad for her wikileaks and had an aggressive response to it. Theres not going to be any bad quotes from her in the paper tomorrow, so she'll ride her previous lead. Trump will get headlines and name recognition, but that wont help him here anywhere near as much as it did back in January.
  56. #2981
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Essentially, she crushed him while letting him think he won.
  57. #2982
    When she was talking about Russia and Syria, she was clearly uncomfortable, and clearly lying through her teeth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #2983
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Essentially, she crushed him while letting him think he won.

    Trump will get headlines and name recognition,
    Theres not going to be any quotes from her in the paper tomorrow,

    So he won then as it is simply about the publicity and not the content.


    Why doesn't either side simply field an intelligent, likeable, and credible candidate and sweep the board,
    instead of leaving the voters to arbitrarily choose between two undesirables?
  59. #2984
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    But publicity matters little at this point. Everyone knows who clinton and trump are.
  60. #2985
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Boring Debate. If you look at it from an entertainment aspect, Trump won. But if you look at it from a "this is the last head to head debate till the election", Clinton won. Its the home stretch, she didnt say anything stupid, she didnt get beat up too bad for her wikileaks and had an aggressive response to it. Theres not going to be any bad quotes from her in the paper tomorrow, so she'll ride her previous lead. Trump will get headlines and name recognition, but that wont help him here anywhere near as much as it did back in January.
    I think you're underestimating the power of expectations and optics. This debate, and Trump's campaign itself, was designed to result in many more undecideds deciding for Trump than for Clinton, which would be because a good deal of the people who are undecided are so because Trump is not yet presidential enough. This debate gave them what they need to pull the lever for him. This group was not the only that Trump was speaking to. He was also speaking to the "values" conservative base, full of people who think that a Trump presidency would be a Democrat presidency.

    Clinton gave a performance that at this time will not change that many minds. Trump gave a performance that will change a lot of minds. An example that shows Trump getting the best of both worlds: notice how in previous debates, when given the opportunity, he discussed how Bernie had his shit stolen from Hillary. Well, the NeverTrump conservatives HATE that and use it as ammo to claim their "values" rejection of him. But Trump didn't do it this time. Instead he hit home how he will absolutely nominate conservative justices who would absolutely revisit Roe v. Wade if he nominated enough. He already got the most from Bernie supporters that he could before the final debate, and at the final debate he wanted to get as much of the conservative NeverTrumpers he could.

    Some say he's playing 3d chess. I say he makes 3d chess look like checkers.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 10-20-2016 at 04:09 PM.
  61. #2986
    half the country on nov 9.



    inb4 "yeah but which half"
  62. #2987
    i cant believe this exists. timestamp 10:51

    https://youtu.be/ZNoQI8_J_gA?t=651

    Last edited by wufwugy; 10-21-2016 at 12:02 AM.
  63. #2988
    Caring about the gop base of voters is pointless it isn't like they're voting Hillary. Obviously it helps to throw in some more palatable opinions for them but it's minor. And at the same time equally alienating to more democratic voters who dislike Hillary.

    The sad thing is if he loses you will genuinely think it's down to foul play rather than him just not being that good. Which after two terms of Obama and an awful candidate in Hillary is pretty damning.
  64. #2989
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Caring about the gop base of voters is pointless it isn't like they're voting Hillary. Obviously it helps to throw in some more palatable opinions for them but it's minor. And at the same time equally alienating to more democratic voters who dislike Hillary.
    Perhaps. There are a large number of base conservatives who think Trump is a Democrat and say they won't vote for him because of that.

    The sad thing is if he loses you will genuinely think it's down to foul play rather than him just not being that good.
    Depends. I believe things when there are reasons to believe them. My position on election fraud may be different than what you think. I don't have a solid idea of to what degree it happens, and I suspect it may only change outcomes in non-blowouts. If there is evidence of election fraud, yes, you will hear about it from me. If there's not, you're unlikely to hear about it from me.
  65. #2990
    Bush vs Gore is probably the only one in my life that was fixed.

    I can see this one being fixed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #2991
    The problem isn't that he's lost a narrow election, has found evidence of vote tampering, and is making a noise about it. The problem is that he's claiming it's going to be rigged before the votes are even counted, with no evidence. It's just one more manipulative ploy he's using to try to win.

    And this is his excuse for encouraging his followers to keep an eye on the 'suspect' voting stations. And what are they going to do? They will go to these places and stand around intimidating people. And this will ensure democracy is served by scaring some little old black lady so much she won't want to go to the polling station. Well done, Trump.

    In fact, if there's any rigging going on, the evidence (yes actual evidence) suggests it's happening on a state level and against the people who would be expected to vote democrat. N. Carolina is the worst example of four states which had their voting regulations called out by the US Supreme Court:

    https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-f...a6d#.yi3ahif4f

    N. Carolina's response to this:

    https://thinkprogress.org/north-caro...748#.p4e4umueb

    Something's wrong when you have to stand 3 hours in line to vote ffs.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-22-2016 at 10:01 AM.
  67. #2992
    Raising awareness is definitely not a problem. Even if you think he's done it in the worst way possible, it's still a good thing that he's doing it.

    There is a great deal of evidence that there is a threat of election fraud. Any society that belittles the potential for election fraud deserves what it gets.

    The main reason why what Trump is doing is correct is that this will go a long way in deterring fraud from happening in the first place. The same pundits who have gotten 100% of things wrong for the last year are again wrong when they say he's leaving the door open to delegitimize the results. This isn't about that. It's about stopping a problem from happening by heading it off at the pass.
  68. #2993
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    They will go to these places and stand around intimidating people. And this will ensure democracy is served by scaring some little old black lady so much she won't want to go to the polling station. Well done, Trump.
    This is a fantastic example of showing how the media has changed perceptions. The Trump side has been incredibly peaceful compared to the Clinton side, yet people widely and wrongly believe that there is a greater threat of intimidation and violence from the Trump side.
  69. #2994
    North Carolina numbers showing big boost in Independents, big decline in Democrats, and men initially leading women in turnout.

    Signs of a blowout.
  70. #2995
    Simplistic extrapolation from those numbers (which is wrong but a neat beginning point) suggests ~55% for Trump in NC, turning the Romney 2 point win to a 10 point win. Electoral College landslide.
  71. #2996
    On the topic of the lyin' polls, some of the big ones of late have weighted for D +34 just to give Clinton a 5 point lead in a red state or have weighted for D +11 nationally, which is +4 greater than Obama had in 2008. If this was House of Cards, people would call it contrived bad writing.
  72. #2997
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Raising awareness is definitely not a problem. Even if you think he's done it in the worst way possible, it's still a good thing that he's doing it.

    There is a great deal of evidence that there is a threat of election fraud. Any society that belittles the potential for election fraud deserves what it gets.

    The main reason why what Trump is doing is correct is that this will go a long way in deterring fraud from happening in the first place. The same pundits who have gotten 100% of things wrong for the last year are again wrong when they say he's leaving the door open to delegitimize the results. This isn't about that. It's about stopping a problem from happening by heading it off at the pass.
    The numbers of this post are just to keep track of paragraphs from your post, I realised it may sound a little condescending (there's a better word) and final that isn't my intention.

    1 - In the context of what was said yes it 100% is a problem. I'm not sure on how legitimate it is that people would be at polling stations applying unwanted pressure but just because something may have a good, such as awareness on fraudulent elections, doesn't mean the payoff is worth it. So the worst possible way still having positive results isn't true.

    2 - Where is this evidence? Most of what I've seen (little) is the type of situation where there is an error but one that is explained by much more likely common symptoms. I agree with the other part of your post but at the same time just because something shouldn't be completely dismissed doesn't mean it is a valid reason to cause this much fuss.

    3 - If there is fraud going on I highly doubt this is actually anywhere close to optimal for exposing and fixing the issue. I also think the logic of they were wrong about something so they'll be wrong again (and vice versa) is very damaging and a complete logical fallacy in a lot of circumstances.
  73. #2998
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is a fantastic example of showing how the media has changed perceptions. The Trump side has been incredibly peaceful compared to the Clinton side, yet people widely and wrongly believe that there is a greater threat of intimidation and violence from the Trump side.
    Taking the comment out of context. Any side doing what was stated is a very bad thing. There may be an argument that more democrat aligned groups do this more often but clearly creating more of it is a negative.

    Personally I'm not sure that is a particularly large consequence of what's been said.
  74. #2999
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There is a great deal of evidence that there is a threat of election fraud. Any society that belittles the potential for election fraud deserves what it gets.
    A great deal of evidence? Like what?
  75. #3000
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    North Carolina numbers showing big boost in Independents, big decline in Democrats, and men initially leading women in turnout.

    Signs of a blowout.
    Media confirmed rigged again

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-states-230176

    Interested to know your source too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •