[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51767784]Only 4 in 10? Should be 10 in 10. How anyone can still support him after all the shit he has done is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
You know that quote that goes something along the lines of this?
[QUOTE]First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, people, especially those who initially supported someone, tend to turn a blind eye when they think that the politicians actions (that they don't necessarily agree with) won't affect them because the politician promised to something else to help them.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51767715]Always look at the numbers when news articles publish poll articles.[/QUOTE]
Seriously. I honestly wouldn't mind if polls were banned from SH, because they usually have a miniature sample size and don't help any discussion 90% of the time.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768011]What more do I need than this very election to show that polls simply cannot be trusted?[/QUOTE]
some credibility, perhaps?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51768010]i 100% guarantee hillary would've been a better president than trump[/QUOTE]
And that's why I will always defend Trump, even if sometimes I might come off as stretching logical reasoning a bit.
I cannot stand to see someone like her go down as the benevolent "rightful queen" figure of US politics denied her throne by an evil usurper. That would almost be as bad as her winning....
almost...
[QUOTE=wewt!;51768023]Seriously. I honestly wouldn't mind if polls were banned from SH, because they usually have a miniature sample size and don't help any discussion 90% of the time.[/QUOTE]
So you didn't read the thread is what you're telling me here.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51767957][url=http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html]Yes.[/url][/QUOTE]
Fascinating how only five presidents had the highest approval rating right after their election, with all of them winning the popular vote. I don't see anything surprising about any of this
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51767936]Historically yes.
Are you going to deny history now, too?[/QUOTE]
Historically, the scenarios were all completely different. Obama had a much higher popular vote tally, thus his higher approval rating.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51767940]And a 10 point lead before Director Comey said "Emails" again.
For christs sakes.
What is with the literal historical revisionism done by super pro Trump people like yourself? The history, and events did not happen as you describe[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-clinton-leads-trump-10-points-n633871[/url]
I make nothing up
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768030]And that's why I will always defend Trump, even if sometimes I might come off as stretching logical reasoning a bit.
I cannot stand to see someone like her go down as the benevolent "rightful queen" figure of US politics denied her throne by an evil usurper. That would always be as bad as her winning....
almost...[/QUOTE]
Rightful queen? Naah.
Still better than Trumby.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768030]And that's why I will always defend Trump, even if sometimes I might come off as stretching logical reasoning a bit.
I cannot stand to see someone like her go down as the benevolent "rightful queen" figure of US politics denied her throne by an evil usurper. That would always be as bad as her winning....
almost...[/QUOTE]
thanks for completely missing my point about how your argument was ridiculously unsubstantiated, and instead using it as a springboard to declare you'll always be blind to criticism
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768030]And that's why I will always defend Trump, even if sometimes I might come off as stretching logical reasoning a bit.
I cannot stand to see someone like her go down as the benevolent "rightful queen" figure of US politics denied her throne by an evil usurper. That would almost be as bad as her winning....
almost...[/QUOTE]
i see you're going for a healthy ellipsis:shitposting ratio, good on ya for that
do you honestly think that you 'have to' defend trump because there exist people who are critical of his actions
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768011]We. Know. They. Can. Be. WRONG!!
What more do I need than this very election to show that polls simply cannot be trusted?[/QUOTE]
A basis for your reasoning beyond "These polls failed to calculate the final result, ergo throw out polling". Polls have failed in the past. This was far from the biggest upset in American presidential history. Not trusting polls works once in a blue moon but it's a very bad trend to practice, as evidenced by the fact that the polling industry didn't go extinct after Trumps victory.
[QUOTE=Pootis Mann;51768036]
[URL]http://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-clinton-leads-trump-10-points-n633871[/URL]
I make nothing up[/QUOTE]
End Citizens United is a leftist non-profit engaged in activism. It's not even a real pollster. Shame on NBC for running that story. By November most pollsters were showing a much closer race
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;51768051]i see you're going for a healthy ellipsis:shitposting ratio, good on ya for that
do you honestly think that you 'have to' defend trump because there exist people who are critical of his actions[/QUOTE]
He has to defend Trump no matter how bad Trump fucks up because he hates Hillary so much that he can't stand the idea of her looking good in comparison.
Which is... Hilarious actually.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51767799]The problem with all polls is that they can be quite easily discredited by someone saying "no one asked me". All polls are inherently flawed because of the whole "sample" thing, it may be "scientifically" selected, but it's still just a small group of people getting asked the questions.
While I do think Trump's Presidency will be cut short one way or another (most likely him resigning out of stress) I don't expect most people in America will be comfortable, and they will very soon remember why they hated the establishment and decided to vote for him in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but [URL="http://research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm"] that's not how sampling polls work. [/URL]. It's been mathematically proven that [URL="http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html"] even with a sample size of 385 for 300 million people[/URL], you can be 95% sure that your numbers fall within +/- 5% of your true answer.
Polls are not flawed -- polling [I]methods[/I] may be flawed(example: only polling people via landline, only polling people who visit a certain location, etc), but the math works out.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768030]And that's why I will always defend Trump, even if sometimes I might come off as stretching logical reasoning a bit.
I cannot stand to see someone like her go down as the benevolent "rightful queen" figure of US politics denied her throne by an evil usurper. That would almost be as bad as her winning....
almost...[/QUOTE]
I've been saying this a lot lately but ya'lls side vastly overestimates how much FP loves Clinton.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768011]We. Know. They. Can. Be. WRONG!!
What more do I need than this very election to show that polls simply cannot be trusted?[/QUOTE]
I have a 50 50 chance of flipping a coin and getting heads
I call for heads
I get tails
Was I wrong or were the probabilities not favourable to that call
Was Whoaly the one here who said way back before the election results came out that everyone who voted for Clinton should be treated as her 'accomplices' and prosecuted or was that someone else with a surprisingly raging hateboner?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51768083]I've been saying this a lot lately but ya'lls side vastly overestimates how much FP loves Clinton.[/QUOTE]
I'm more of a Sanders guy since I see Clinton as bottom-of-the-barrel pond scum. All she's done since her loss is uncomfortably shift the blame around the DNC.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;51768051]i see you're going for a healthy ellipsis:shitposting ratio, good on ya for that
do you honestly think that you 'have to' defend trump because there exist people who are critical of his actions[/QUOTE]
You can be critical of Trump, but right now it seems that everyone going after him is trying to build Hillary, and by extension, the rest of the establishment, into these martyred figures of a more "sensible" form of politics. The many criticisms of her are now being swept under the rug, dismissed as dreaded "false equivalency".
If you want to treat any of this elections losers' as fallen heroes let it be Bernie. By lionizing Clinton you lionize the establishment (which some even argue is what made Trump's Presidency possible in the first place.)
CLINTON IS SHIT AND NOBODY EVEN PRETENDED TO LIKE HER BEFORE SHE WON THE PRIMARIES
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("shit posting" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Pootis Mann;51768036]Fascinating how only five presidents had the highest approval rating right after their election, with all of them winning the popular vote. I don't see anything surprising about any of this[/QUOTE]
The only presidents who's approval ratings increased significantly after their entry ratings were the Bush's, and only Clinton left with a higher approval rating than when he entered.
If it's not the absolute highest approval you'll get, the entry approval is typically going to be on the higher end. And all signs point to it going down as time goes on.
the biggest and bravest SJWs with the most colourful hair all campaigned and voted for BERNIE SANDERS
And there it is "oh what Trump is doing is ok because Clinton would have done it worse" Clinton is no longer part of the picture. But Trump supporters will still keep blaming her because they can not admit they were wrong to vote an incompetent person into office.
[QUOTE=froztshock;51768098]Was Whoaly the one here who said way back before the election results came out that everyone who voted for Clinton should be treated as her 'accomplices' and prosecuted or was that someone else with a surprisingly raging hateboner?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I even had an account here before the election, so probably not.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768103]You can be critical of Trump, but right now it seems that everyone going after him is trying to build Hillary, and by extension, the rest of the establishment, into these martyred figures of a more "sensible" form of politics. The many criticisms of her are now being swept under the rug, dismissed as dreaded "false equivalency".
If you want to treat any of this elections losers' as fallen heroes let it be Bernie. By lionizing Clinton you lionize the establishment (which some even argue is what made Trump's Presidency possible in the first place.)[/QUOTE]
NOBODY IS TRYING TO BUILD HILLARY
Like, goddamn, she's pretty fucking hated on here but she's NOWHERE NEAR as bad as Trump is.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51767799]"sample"[/quote]
[quote]"scientifically"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768103]"false equivalency"[/QUOTE]
i like how you're trying to make these perfectly valid concepts sound like buzzwords by putting them in quotes
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;51768118]NOBODY IS TRYING TO BUILD HILLARY
Like, goddamn, she's pretty fucking hated on here but she's NOWHERE NEAR as bad as Trump is.[/QUOTE]
I mean, I hope she never runs for political office again but if it makes Trump supporters angry I'm gonna' keep saying that she would've been a better president because, A: I believe it, and B: A defunct politician that couldn't win against a reality TV star is their rage button and I think that's adorable.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768000]Then please stop telling us Trump supporters that we should start mourning for Hillary's loss because of the latest thing he does which you'll assume we shouldn't like. We'll decide when Trump has betrayed us thank you very much.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually, I don't think you will. I think people like you will be found dead in puddles of poisoned Kool-aid in your remote Trumpstown shacks before you ever abandon your pathetic delusion that Trump is ~anti-establishment~.
I personally defended hillary (and got plenty of strange PMs from people accusing me of being "CTR") a lot here because she wouldn't be the literal unholy shitfire that is trump and his cabinet
of course it wasn't enough because you can't run a political campaign on "hey at least I'm not THAT guy"
she really wouldn't have been that much different than obama
[QUOTE=aznz888;51768099]I'm more of a Sanders guy since I see Clinton as bottom-of-the-barrel pond scum. All she's done since her loss is uncomfortably shift the blame around the DNC.[/QUOTE]
Everyone on FP who thought Clinton would be a better president than Trump is "more of a Sanders guy" lol.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768103]You can be critical of Trump, [B]but right now it seems that everyone going after him is trying to build Hillary, and by extension, the rest of the establishment, into these martyred figures of a more "sensible" form of politics.[/B] The many criticisms of her are now being swept under the rug, dismissed as dreaded "false equivalency".
If you want to treat any of this elections losers' as fallen heroes let it be Bernie. By lionizing Clinton you lionize the establishment (which some even argue is what made Trump's Presidency possible in the first place.)[/QUOTE]
Holy fuck no how are you possibly gleaning this from peoples posts.
bernie would have won, bernie would have won, bernie would have fucking won
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I[/media]
To me Trump will be a quite good president
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.