Trump's polling goes off a cliff, Clinton opens up huge double-digit lead in post-tapes NBC/WSJ poll - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51183313]I have a hard time trusting NBC, considering the crap they posted last night. [media]https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465/[/media] I'm still speechless to tell you all the truth.[/QUOTE] this reads like satire

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51183313]I have a hard time trusting NBC, considering the crap they posted last night. [media]https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465/[/media] I'm still speechless to tell you all the truth.[/QUOTE] im dumb why is everyone quoting this? because he mixed up "acid wash" and a program name?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51183313]I have a hard time trusting NBC, considering the crap they posted last night. [media]https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465/[/media] I'm still speechless to tell you all the truth.[/QUOTE] That must be some fact checking AI. There's no way in hell they could have thought that would be a good idea to post.

[QUOTE=patq911;51183894]im dumb why is everyone quoting this? because he mixed up "acid wash" and a program name?[/QUOTE] No, it's because it's a totally worthless "fact check." Nobody actually thought that Clinton poured acid onto an email server.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51183916]No, it's because it's a totally worthless "fact check." Nobody actually thought that Clinton poured acid onto an email server.[/QUOTE] are you kidding me that was the onion posting it guys how about you get YOUR facts che [t]http://i.imgur.com/1fgSmaD.png[/t] oh

[QUOTE=MistyVermin;51183895]That must be some fact checking AI. There's no way in hell they could have thought that would be a good idea to post.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting how dumb people are. Maybe they think Trump is actually an idiot and doesnt know that you cant acid wash emails

[QUOTE=srobins;51183861]Whatever weird concoction of words you just produced isn't really an excuse for calling foul on a completely true statement by interpreting the phrase "acid wash" as someone literally using a corrosive compound to destroy a server. This is a completely stupid "fact check" no matter how you spin it.[/QUOTE] well no shit it's a stupid fact check you can't fact check meaningless buzz words and sound bites, which comprise trump's entire fucking vocabulary it'd be like trying to fact check the statement "hillary totally blew it in libya". "Totally blew it" doesn't fucking mean anything, it's completely empty rhetoric.

[media]https://youtu.be/jHh_QbNS7TA[/media] This video fits the discussion so well.

Okay, here's my opinion on the debate. Clinton was more presidential and "official". Trump got the entertainment points and zingers. I think Clinton won debate-wise. Trump only won TV-wise.

ITS GOING DOWN DOWN DOOOOOOOWN

[QUOTE=nVidia;51183997][media]https://youtu.be/jHh_QbNS7TA[/media] This video fits the discussion so well.[/QUOTE] It's also total bull. CNN and NBC have extensively covered Clinton's scandals, including the FBI probe. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-report-highlights/[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51183975]well no shit it's a stupid fact check you can't fact check meaningless buzz words and sound bites, which comprise trump's entire fucking vocabulary it'd be like trying to fact check the statement "hillary totally blew it in libya". "Totally blew it" doesn't fucking mean anything, it's completely empty rhetoric.[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about? It's okay for them to claim he lied about her wiping her server because.. buzzwords? You're talking nonsense. Trump's tendency to say meaningless things has literally nothing to do with NBC producing a moronic "fact check" that intentionally misconstrues what he said.

[QUOTE=MistyVermin;51183895]That must be some fact checking AI. There's no way in hell they could have thought that would be a good idea to post.[/QUOTE] But it has a graphic made specifically for it, you're giving them of the doubt. They are biased liars or biased idiots

[QUOTE=srobins;51184121]What are you even talking about? It's okay for them to claim he lied about her wiping her server because.. buzzwords? You're talking nonsense. Trump's tendency to say meaningless things has literally nothing to do with NBC producing a moronic "fact check" that intentionally misconstrues what he said.[/QUOTE] what does "acid washed" mean, objectively

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51184228]what does "acid washed" mean, objectively[/QUOTE] Why even ask such a meaningless rhetorical question? Trump said "acid washed", then immediately corrected himself to "bleached", to refer to the software which is literally called [I]BleachBit[/I] to wipe her server. To imply that Trump was misleading viewers into thinking that Clinton literally dumped a corrosive chemical over her hard drives is beyond stupid, which in all honesty wouldn't even matter seeing as both have the effect of destroying all data on the drive. It's a manufactured error and you're fighting a losing battle trying to defend it.

[QUOTE=srobins;51184262]Why even ask such a meaningless rhetorical question? Trump said "acid washed", then immediately corrected himself to "bleached", to refer to the software which is literally called [I]BleachBit[/I] to wipe her server. To imply that Trump was misleading viewers into thinking that Clinton literally dumped a corrosive chemical over her hard drives is beyond stupid, which in all honesty wouldn't even matter seeing as both have the effect of destroying all data on the drive. It's a manufactured error and you're fighting a losing battle trying to defend it.[/QUOTE] I'm not implying that Trump literally meant that at all. Let me reiterate, since I obviously wasn't clear enough the first time. Trump speaks only in vague, poorly formed, meaningless rhetoric and euphemism. Let's say you're a fact checker at NBC, and Trump goes on a rant about "cyber" or how "obamacare is full of bad", and your boss says "fact check that statement". What the fuck are you [I]supposed[/I] to do? You can't fact check a statement that is completely empty of meaning. When you try to anyway, you get shit like that. But it isn't like they really have a fucking choice, because practically everything Trump says is like that. These things are a consequence of Trump's substance devoid marketing speak being taken seriously.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51184330]I'm not implying that Trump literally meant that at all. Let me reiterate, since I obviously wasn't clear enough the first time. Trump speaks only in vague, poorly formed, meaningless rhetoric and euphemism. Let's say you're a fact checker at NBC, and Trump goes on a rant about "cyber" or how "obamacare is full of bad", and your boss says "fact check that statement". What the fuck are you [I]supposed[/I] to do? You can't fact check a statement that is completely empty of meaning. When you try to anyway, you get shit like that. But it isn't like they really have a fucking choice, because practically everything Trump says is like that. These things are a consequence of Trump's substance devoid marketing speak being taken seriously.[/QUOTE] Okay, once again, this has nothing to do with this specific fact check. Just because 90% of Trump's rhetoric is meaningless doesn't mean you just get to pull one completely valid phrase of his out of a hat and declare it a lie. Sure, much of what he says is completely devoid of meaning, but him saying that Clinton acid washed or bleached her server is [I]not[/I]. It's a verifiable, maybe even [I]fact-checkable[/I] statement which is actually true, which makes it laughable that NBC decided to single out that of all things to declare a lie. [editline]10th October 2016[/editline] You can blame Trump for a lot of things, but you cannot pin NBC's shit-tier "fact checking" on Trump's rhetoric. They did something stupid, that's really all there is to say about it.

[QUOTE=srobins;51184262]Why even ask such a meaningless rhetorical question? Trump said "acid washed", then immediately corrected himself to "bleached", to refer to the software which is literally called [I]BleachBit[/I] to wipe her server. To imply that Trump was misleading viewers into thinking that Clinton literally dumped a corrosive chemical over her hard drives is beyond stupid, which in all honesty wouldn't even matter seeing as both have the effect of destroying all data on the drive. It's a manufactured [B][I]error[/I][/B] and you're fighting a losing battle trying to defend it.[/QUOTE] Let's avoid the word 'error'. It's mudslinging, plain and simple. Probably because their candidate came off worse this debate.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51184450]Let's avoid the word 'error'. It's mudslinging, plain and simple. Probably because their candidate came off worse this debate.[/QUOTE] If you're referring to Hillary, all the scientific polls I've seen so far still consider her the winner of the debate, though the margins were closer than the first, and many people agree Trump did better than expected. NBC's not nearly as bad as Fox as a news source, but they're pretty bad. Everyone knows that.

[QUOTE=srobins;51184407]Okay, once again, this has nothing to do with this specific fact check. Just because 90% of Trump's rhetoric is meaningless doesn't mean you just get to pull one completely valid phrase of his out of a hat and declare it a lie. Sure, much of what he says is completely devoid of meaning, but him saying that Clinton acid washed or bleached her server is [I]not[/I]. It's a verifiable, maybe even [I]fact-checkable[/I] statement which is actually true, which makes it laughable that NBC decided to single out that of all things to declare a lie. [editline]10th October 2016[/editline] You can blame Trump for a lot of things, but you cannot pin NBC's shit-tier "fact checking" on Trump's rhetoric. They did something stupid, that's really all there is to say about it.[/QUOTE] this is why I asked you earlier to define exactly what "acid washed her email servers" means because to fact check a statement, the statement has to make a specific, factual claim You're saying it is a statement that can be fact checked, so again I ask you, what [I]exactly[/I] does the phrase "acid washed her email servers" mean? Because I am of the opinion that it is so vague that you could pull almost any meaning from it that you want, many of them completely wrong, many of them correct. [editline]10th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Monkah;51184450]Let's avoid the word 'error'. It's mudslinging, plain and simple. Probably because their candidate came off worse this debate.[/QUOTE] it's hard not to throw mud around when you're wrestling with a pig

[QUOTE=Orkel;51184009]Okay, here's my opinion on the debate. Clinton was more presidential and "official". Trump got the entertainment points and zingers. I think Clinton won debate-wise. Trump only won TV-wise.[/QUOTE] it's like nixon vs kennedy. people who WATCHED thought kennedy won, people who LISTENED thought nixon won.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51184450]Let's avoid the word 'error'. It's mudslinging, plain and simple. Probably because their candidate came off worse this debate.[/QUOTE] I mean it as in it's meant to be interpreted as an error on Trump's part to call it acid washing when it's a perfectly valid way to refer to what happened.

[QUOTE=Quark:;51184521]it's like nixon vs kennedy. people who WATCHED thought kennedy won, people who LISTENED thought nixon won.[/QUOTE] That is a classic story, but it doesn't take into account the fact that at the time, Republicans were more likely to listen to the debate on the radio while Democrats would watch on TV

This is another heavily biased poll with democrats making up 43% and republicans making only 36% of the audience. Not only that, but they only made less than 500 calls. The article also doesn't even get their own source right. 45% said they would vote for Clinton and 35% for Trump. That pretty much just aligns with the people they asked. But, again, they only called 500 people. [IMG]https://s22.postimg.org/9i9svanr5/dasdsadasdsadasd.png[/IMG] This poll means nothing. [url]https://www.scribd.com/document/327067170/161027-NBCWSJ-October-N-500-Poll[/url]

[QUOTE=archangel125;51184483]and many people agree Trump did better than expected.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I feel more like the case is that Hillary just under-performed quite terribly. Not quite bad enough to lose to Trump, but still a poor performance from her side. Trump performed no better and no worse than what was to be expected, and Clinton should be able to beat that by a long shot as we saw in the first debate.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51184685]This is another heavily biased poll with democrats making up 43% and republicans making only 36% of the audience. Not only that, but they only made less than 500 calls. The article also doesn't even get their own source right. 45% said they would vote for Clinton and 35% for Trump. That pretty much just aligns with the people they asked. But, again, they only called 500 people. [IMG]https://s22.postimg.org/9i9svanr5/dasdsadasdsadasd.png[/IMG] This poll means nothing. [url]https://www.scribd.com/document/327067170/161027-NBCWSJ-October-N-500-Poll[/url][/QUOTE] a) Thats a representative sample of likely voters b) 500 is plenty of people for a representative sample Just because you don't understand how polling works doesn't mean it's a bad poll

[QUOTE=Dolton;51184892]a) Thats a representative sample of likely voters b) 500 is plenty of people for a representative sample Just because you don't understand how polling works doesn't mean it's a bad poll[/QUOTE] The polls results align right up with the party affiliation of the people they asked.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51184958]The polls results align right up with the party affiliation of the people they asked.[/QUOTE] so?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51184976]so?[/QUOTE] It would be like saying 100% of americans support trump if you only polled 500 republicans.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;51184958]The polls results align right up with the party affiliation of the people they asked.[/QUOTE] What's the issue here? Party affiliation is an attitude, not a demographic and is subject to change.