I mean jesus christ I might have voted for Kasich over Clinton. Whoaly you seriously can't be so delusional as to think every criticism of Trump goes hand in hand with supporting and lionizing Clinton.
[QUOTE=Matekx;51768180]To me Trump will be a quite good president[/QUOTE]
sure he will, 3 posts
[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]
Uncertainty is the basis of probability.
Doesn't mean that a poll with a 95% probability of being within a minimal margin of error is untrustworthy.
[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]
The fact is, as bad as she was, and she was bad
she still wouldn't have fucked things up this bad, this fast.
you can't really argue that.
[QUOTE=Matekx;51768180]To me Bannon will be a quite good president[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;51768177]bernie would have won, bernie would have won, bernie would have fucking won
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I[/media][/QUOTE]
Bernie can still win
[QUOTE=Turnips5;51768177]bernie would have won, bernie would have won, bernie would have fucking won
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I[/media][/QUOTE]
Maybe see you again Bernie in next three year if you available running for president again.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51768208]The fact is, as bad as she was, and she was bad
she still wouldn't have fucked things up this bad, this fast.
you can't really argue that.[/QUOTE]
Whoaly subscribes to the theory that Clinton would equal nuclear armageddon after her unilateral no fly zone leads us to a shooting war with Russia. There is nothing you can say to convince him that she would be better than Trump.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51768199]I mean jesus christ I might have voted for Kasich over Clinton. Whoaly you seriously can't be so delusional as to think every criticism of Trump goes hand in hand with supporting and lionizing Clinton.[/QUOTE]
He's repeatedly demonstrated that yes, he actually can
He basically just pops up in threads to briefly give lip service to Trump and then runs away when the debate gets too difficult and he can't deflect to Clinton anymore
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51768232]Whoaly subscribes to the theory that Clinton would equal nuclear armageddon after her unilateral no fly zone leads us to a shooting war with Russia. There is nothing you can say to convince him that she would be better than Trump.[/QUOTE]
She could have changed my mind, but she just kept pushing that damn NFZ. Everytime I wavered and thought "maybe she won't be THAT bad" I would hear about her saying we must "stop Assad" or "stand up" to Putin, and I remembered why I wanted none of that shit.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768260]She could have changed my mind, but she just kept pushing that damn NFZ. Everytime I wavered and thought "maybe she won't be THAT bad" I would hear about her saying we must "stop Assad" or "stand up" to Putin, and I remembered why I wanted none of that shit.[/QUOTE]
the fact you hold that claim to a iron clad degree, but you will let Trump break his promises at will, and still defend him
i mean, okay, sure, that's your right, but it's not sound reasoning
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768260]She could have changed my mind, but she just kept pushing that damn NFZ. Everytime I wavered and thought "maybe she won't be THAT bad" I would hear about her saying we must "stop Assad" or "stand up" to Putin, and I remembered why I wanted none of that shit.[/QUOTE]
Delusional. That's the only word to describe you and people like you at this point.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768260]She could have changed my mind, but she just kept pushing that damn NFZ. Everytime I wavered and thought "maybe she won't be THAT bad" I would hear about her saying we must "stop Assad" or "stand up" to Putin, and I remembered why I wanted none of that shit.[/QUOTE]
Trump wants to "stand up" to China as well, and apparently he hasn't declared war on them yet. Could it be...? That "standing up" to something doesn't mean "LAUNCH THE NUKES"? I know it sounds unlikely, but just maybe that's the case.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51767868]This is why I hold his critics in contempt: they're basically incapable of two things which make for a halfway rational opposition: an ability to begrudgingly respect an opponent when he keeps his promises, OR being able to admit to a certain amount of relief when he goes back on what you saw as his most dangerous proposals.
They will never allow themselves to give him any credit, the telltale signs of hacks.[/QUOTE]
You can "respect" him for keeping his promises but if they were awful promises to begin with it takes any respect away and then some.
Then theres all the bonus shit he does... like pissing off Australia.
Could someone with blind unwavering and unquestioning support for a person be considered a hack?
Whoaly is a very special snowflake who can't handle his narrative being broken.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51768272]the fact you hold that claim to a iron clad degree, but you will let Trump break his promises at will, and still defend him
i mean, okay, sure, that's your right, but it's not sound reasoning[/QUOTE]
EVERY politician breaks they're promises, I'm tired of being told that I should undergo some political 180 every time he seems to be going back on something.
I guarantee if the situation was reversed and a victorious Clinton was going back on all of her promises you would be telling us how it's unreasonable and naive to hold a candidate to everything they say on the campaign trail, and we should just be grateful she didn't loose to Trump.
Would I be met with anything but mockery for saying she should be impeached for pushing through TPP + TIPP, which she inevitably would have done?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51768286]Trump wants to "stand up" to China as well, and apparently he hasn't declared war on them yet. Could it be...? That "standing up" to something doesn't mean "LAUNCH THE NUKES"? I know it sounds unlikely, but just maybe that's the case.[/QUOTE]
I can't say I'm a fan of everything he's said about China, but his dispute with them is mostly based on a desire to bring back jobs shipped over there to America, more based on economics than on military confrontationalism.
Hillary by contrast was proposing specific military actions in regards to a tense geopolitical situation.
I'm pretty sure for like the 100th time nobody cares about what Clinton would have done at this point. What she would've done is irrelevant now.
Now people are criticizing Trump for Trump's decisions and choices and actions and Clinton has nothing to do with it.
Trump essentially threatened to invade Mexico for no reason and couldn't even get through a phone call with one of the US's closest allies, and you think he's better qualified to handle a 'tense geopolitical situation'.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768357]EVERY politician breaks they're promises, I'm tired of being told that I should undergo some political 180 every time he seems to be going back on something.
I guarantee if the situation was reversed and a victorious Clinton was going back on all of her promises you would be telling us how it's unreasonable and naive to hold a candidate to everything they say on the campaign trail, and we should just be grateful she didn't loose to Trump.
Would I be met with anything but mockery for saying she should be impeached for pushing through TPP + TIPP, which she inevitably would have done?
I can't say I'm a fan of everything he's said about China, but his dispute with them is mostly based on a desire to bring back jobs shipped over there to America, more based on economics than on military confrontationalism.
Hillary by contrast was proposing specific military actions in regards to a tense geopolitical situation.[/QUOTE]
I'm just confused by the clear, blatant hypocrisy on display.
[QUOTE=CatFodder;51768370]Trump essentially [B]threatened to invade Mexico[/B] for no reason and couldn't even get through a phone call with one of the US's closest allies, and you think he's better qualified to handle a 'tense geopolitical situation'.[/QUOTE]
You mean this:
[QUOTE=CNN]According to an excerpt of the transcript of the call with Peña Nieto provided to CNN, Trump said, “You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with. We are willing to help with that big-league, but they have be knocked out and you have not done a good job knocking them out.”
Trump made an offer to help Peña Nieto with the drug cartels.[/QUOTE]
It was an offer of military assistance to finally sort out Mexico's organized crime problem, maybe a rather blunt, un-nuanced way of tackling it, but hardly a threat of invasion.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768400]You mean this:
It was an offer of military assistance to finally sort out Mexico's organized crime problem, maybe a rather blunt, un-nuanced way of tackling it, but hardly a threat of invasion.[/QUOTE]
Imagine if Russia or China suddenly decided we needed "military assistance" to help sort out our rioting problem with left-wing anarchists torching random shit. I'm pretty sure everyone would be in an uproar about the impending invasion.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768400]You mean this:
It was an offer of military assistance to finally sort out Mexico's organized crime problem, maybe a rather blunt, un-nuanced way of tackling it, but hardly a threat of invasion.[/QUOTE]
the best part about this post is that you can't even defend his ability to handle foreign relations without calling him blunt and lacking nuance
[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]
On 7th Jan 2017, the Joint Space Operations Centre (JSpOC) gave two satellites a 44% chance of colliding, based on measurements of their orbits. Uncertainty in the measurements mean that no one could say for sure whether or not they would collide. They ended up missing each other. Should we stop trusting the JSpOC entirely because of this then?
[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]
Whoaly is a MESS!
I understand your dislike of Clinton's entitlement but you profess to 'always defend(ing) trump' and that's absolute lunacy. You can dislike Clinton and criticise trump you know.
[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 rational understanding of what probability is.
It was unlikely trump won. He did anyway. Roll a d6, no matter what it lands on it's going to have had a 1 in 6 chance of that number turning up, it's not like if it landed on 4 you would say "THERE WAS A 100% CHANCE OF IT LANDING ON 4! STATISTICS ARE WRONG!"
.... would you?
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51767735]Yeah, 725 is large enough that the margin of error becomes pretty small. And even so, I feel like the public outcry in general is a show of it. Just look at pictures of the Women's March, look at how quickly people gathered outside airports to protest the recent travel ban. The number doesn't surprise me.[/QUOTE]
The number of people isn't what I'm most curious about, it's where the poll voters were from and their political party as well, because if they pulled these people mainly from areas such as California or New York then there's the reason why that many voted toward that or if they were from like Texas or Georgia than it would make it worse? Not making an argument for anyone at the keyboard with the sphincter clenched and the hands ready, just a genuine question that can skew results based on majority coming from a predominately democratic and or republican state.
to put it into perspective;
The population of the U.S. is 300,000,000
The sample size was 725
The percentage of people saying they want trump out is 4 / 10, or 40%
This means the poll has a confidence interval of 3.57 at 95%, or in more plain terms, we can say confidently that between 91.43 and 100% of the population would respond the same way, with a 3.5% chance that [I]more[/I] than 4/10 want him out.
So basically, you're wrong, and should stop trying.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Npc_Hydra3;51770085]The number of people isn't what I'm most curious about, it's where the poll voters were from and their political party as well, because if they pulled these people mainly from areas such as California or New York then there's the reason why that many voted toward that or if they were from like Texas or Georgia than it would make it worse? Not making an argument for anyone at the keyboard with the sphincter clenched and the hands ready, just a genuine question that can skew results based on majority coming from a predominately democratic and or republican state.[/QUOTE]
It's a PPP national survey. It's done purely through random number generator. A sample size of 725 removes the chance for things like that to affect the poll.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51768260]She could have changed my mind, but she just kept pushing that damn NFZ. Everytime I wavered and thought "maybe she won't be THAT bad" I would hear about her saying we must "stop Assad" or "stand up" to Putin, and I remembered why I wanted none of that shit.[/QUOTE]
Okay, pretending there were any legitimacy whatsoever to the argument that "No Fly Zone" over a third party nation equals "Nuclear War with Russia," it's not as if we are in any better a position now:
Steve Bannon: [B]'We're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'[/B]
Chinese Central Military Division member Liu Guoshun: [B]"'A war within the president's term', 'war breaking out tonight' are not just slogans, but the reality."[/B]
Trump's own cabinet is saying that there is "no doubt" we're going to war with China, and China seems to agree, so I'm not exactly sure why this is somehow preferable. If one of your core reasons for voting Trump was fearing that Clinton would drag us into a war with a major superpower, then I hate it break it to you, but I think you may have backed the wrong horse.
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51770092]to put it into perspective;
The population of the U.S. is 300,000,000
The sample size was 725
The percentage of people saying they want trump out is 4 / 10, or 40%
This means the poll has a confidence interval of 3.57 at 95%, or in more plain terms, we can say confidently that between 95.5 and 100% of the population would respond the same way, with a 3.5% chance that [I]more[/I] than 4/10 want him out.
So basically, you're wrong, and should stop trying.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
It's a PPP national survey. It's done purely through random number generator. A sample size of 725 removes the chance for things like that to affect the poll.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know its national all I'm saying is even though it's national what party every individual is for makes a difference, because if 74% of the poll sample size was democrats it's skews the results for the entire country as %74 is not the number of democrats and vise versa if it was republic.
[QUOTE=Npc_Hydra3;51770106]Yes I know its national all I'm saying is even though it's national what party every individual is for makes a difference, because if 74% of the poll sample size was democrats it's skews the results for the entire country as %74 is not the number of democrats and vise versa if it was republic.[/QUOTE]
The sample size removes this possibility.
Refer to the rest of the post.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.