• Poll: 4 in 10 support impeaching Trump
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51770120]The sample size removes this possibility. Refer to the rest of the post.[/QUOTE] Sample size alone doesn't really remove that possibility, no. If one particular group is being sampled at a disproportionate rate, it can throw off the results of the entire poll. You can sample a thousand people, but if you're sampling from a predominantly left-leaning area, it is going to skew the results significantly. I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, of course, just reminding you that simply having a large sample size alone isn't enough. You need sound methodology.
[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] Sure, but that is unlikely to happen by chance. Making sure that your sample is representative is basically the most important aspect of polling. If you have anything to suggest they somehow picked out only 18-25 year-olds who also voted for Clinton for their poll, please, whip out that evidence. I haven't looked at the specific poll or polling company, but as a basis they're probably about right, within the statistical error and probably some points of systematical skew. But the number is pretty unlikely to be 50% or 30%.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51770130]Sample size alone doesn't really remove that possibility, no. If one particular group is being sampled at a disproportionate rate, it can throw off the results of the entire poll. You can sample a thousand people, but if you're sampling from a predominantly left-leaning area, it is going to skew the results significantly. I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, of course, just reminding you that simply having a large sample size alone isn't enough. You need sound methodology.[/QUOTE] The sample location was random, It's the PPP. The sample size was sufficient. A confidence interval of 3.5% at 95% was achieved with this study. Doubting this is anti-scientific, and I seriously hope you aren't doing that. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51770139]Sure, but that is unlikely to happen by chance. Making sure that your sample is representative is basically the most important aspect of polling. If you have anything to suggest they somehow picked out only 18-25 year-olds who also voted for Clinton for their poll, please, whip out that evidence. I haven't looked at the specific poll or polling company, but as a basis they're probably about right, within the statistical error and probably some points of systematical skew. But the number is pretty unlikely to be 50% or 30%.[/QUOTE] "pretty unlikely" is like 0.00000000000000001% by the way
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51770149]The sample location was random, It's the PPP. The sample size was sufficient. A confidence interval of 3.5% at 95% was achieved with this study. Doubting this is anti-scientific, and I seriously hope you aren't doing that. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] "pretty unlikely" is like 0.00000000000000001% by the way[/QUOTE] I was just saying it is a stat that makes a difference regardless of which way it goes and just because you take 725 people from across the nation it doesn't mean that around mean that of those 725 people that their political affiliation is going to be around 30% Democrat, 30% Republican and 40% Independent like the entire nation is. Their pool of 725 could've been 40% Democrat, 20% Republican and 40% Independent or a thousand different combinations in between. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51770139]Sure, but that is unlikely to happen by chance. Making sure that your sample is representative is basically the most important aspect of polling. [B]If you have anything to suggest they somehow picked out only 18-25 year-olds who also voted for Clinton for their poll, please, whip out that evidence[/B]. I haven't looked at the specific poll or polling company, but as a basis they're probably about right, within the statistical error and probably some points of systematical skew. But the number is pretty unlikely to be 50% or 30%.[/QUOTE] I wasn't saying that it was a definitive amount and as far as that statement goes I have no evidence nor was I saying the votes were all 18-25 year olds wanting Clinton, all I was saying is that Political affiliation of the 725 people, for it to be accurate for the entire nation, needs to be made up of roughly 30% Dem, 30% Rep and 40% Independent that was all I was saying, not that I disagree with the poll in anyway its probably fine, but nonetheless it is a stat that makes a difference.
[QUOTE=Npc_Hydra3;51770159]I was just saying it is a stat that makes a difference regardless of which way it goes and just because you take 725 people from across the nation it doesn't mean that around mean that of those 725 people that their political affiliation is going to be around 30% Democrat, 30% Republican and 40% Independent like the entire nation is. Their pool of 725 could've been 40% Democrat, 20% Republican and 40% Independent or a thousand different combinations in between. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] I wasn't saying that it was a definitive amount and as far as that statement goes I have no evidence nor was I saying the votes were all 18-25 year olds wanting Clinton, all I was saying is that Political affiliation of the 725 people, for it to be accurate for the entire nation, needs to be made up of roughly 30% Dem, 30% Rep and 40% Independent that was all I was saying, not that I disagree with the poll in anyway its probably fine, but nonetheless it is a stat that makes a difference.[/QUOTE] Yeah but in a random sample of 725 people across the entire country, while it's not impossible, it's incredibly unlikely that that the demographics wouldn't be proportionate to the rest of the country.
Sample size and no location non-discrimination are important but methods that use the internet for instance can skew the numbers towards younger demographics.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51770104]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] All this talk fretting of war with China rings a little hollow. Many of the people who have suddenly become very concerned about how the actions of the United States might be perceived by a foreign country never had any problem with Obama sending extra troops to Russia's doorstep in a naked act of provocation, in fact they found it extremely laudable. I guess the concerns of Vladimir Putin just aren't worth as much consideration as Xi Jingping's. Seems that anti-Trumpists are willing to morph into anything they need to be to attack Trump most effectively, even if it makes them total hypocrites. Trump hasn't really done anything yet, other than his phone call with the Taiwanese President. I can understand why the Chinese might be upset about it, but I believe they're overreacting, especially in comparison to the Russians, who've had to put up with far worse from the USA. Until he does something like move a bunch of ships into the SCS, or using the CIA to topple China-friendly governments, I'll assume that this is just more desperate grasping at straws to make him out to be a far worse man than he actually is.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51770756]All this talk fretting of war with China rings a little hollow. Many of the people who have suddenly become very concerned about how the actions of the United States might be perceived by a foreign country never had any problem with Obama sending extra troops to Russia's doorstep in a naked act of provocation, in fact they found it extremely laudable. I guess the concerns of Vladimir Putin just aren't worth as much consideration as Xi Jingping's. Seems that anti-Trumpists are willing to morph into anything they need to be to attack Trump most effectively, even if it makes them total hypocrites. Trump hasn't really done anything yet, other than his phone call with the Taiwanese President. I can understand why the Chinese might be upset about it, but I believe they're overreacting, especially in comparison to the Russians, who've had to put up with far worse from the USA. Until he does something like move a bunch of ships into the SCS, or using the CIA to topple China-friendly governments, I'll assume that this is just more desperate grasping at straws to make him out to be a far worse man than he actually is.[/QUOTE] soo people shouldn't worry about something happening till its already happened. Ahhhh you're the guy who said he will always blindly defend Trump? You weren't kidding! [quote]We're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt[/quote] The guy who said that is now on the security council. Of course people are worried. Trump has proven himself to be an immature clown and it'll be disaster if war does happen. If war does break out I hope you volunteer to be in the first wave.
We're not allowed to worry about trump because obama did a thing, okay
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51770831]We're not allowed to worry about trump because obama did a thing, okay[/QUOTE] More that you don't have much right to criticize when you defended/ignored Obama when he did much worse.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51770756]Seems that anti-Trumpists are willing to morph into anything they need to be to attack Trump most effectively, even if it makes them total hypocrites. [B]Trump hasn't really done anything yet[/B], other than his phone call with the Taiwanese President. I can understand why the Chinese might be upset about it, but I believe they're overreacting, especially in comparison to the Russians, who've had to put up with far worse from the USA. Until he does something like move a bunch of ships into the SCS, or using the CIA to topple China-friendly governments, I'll assume that this is just more desperate grasping at straws to make him out to be a far worse man than he actually is.[/QUOTE] Trump insults Iran, threatens Iran, bans citizens from 7 countries, threatens Mexico with trade war, destabilizes relations with China, government official says war with China is inevitable, Trump calls for a nuclear weapons race, Trump insults several leaders of foreign countries => Opponents are hypocrites who will morph to attack Trump. Clinton wants a no fly zone in Syria => She would 100% for certain have started a nuclear war with Russia. I don't think I can think of anyone with worse reasoning than you.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]Trump insults Iran,[/QUOTE] He insults everyone, it's part of his charm, besides, the whole GOP has been insulting Iran for a long time [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]threatens Iran,[/QUOTE] President's of both parties have been threatening Iran and other countries for ages. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]bans citizens from 7 countries,[/QUOTE] Like he said he was going to do, if anything this ban falls well short of expectations. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]threatens Mexico with trade war,[/QUOTE] No worse than Obama trying to destroy Russia's economy. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]destabilizes relations with China,[/QUOTE] Again, a mistake on his part (phone call with Taiwanese President) leads to Chinese overreaction. I understand China's concerns, but they have to understand that Russia has kept taken the high road again and again in the face of much worse. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]government official says war with China is inevitable,[/QUOTE] Again; overreaction on their part. Russians have been warning about this for a while, haven't heard many people call for a NATO downsizing to make them feel better. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]Trump calls for a nuclear weapons race,[/QUOTE] I'll admit I'm a bit concerned about some of the stuff he says on this, but I would be surprised if anything horrible truly came of it. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51770954]Trump insults several leaders of foreign countries[/QUOTE] Are you serious about this? Obama insulted Vladimir Putin and the Russian nation as a whole many times, remember that whole Sochi Olympics thing? He basically boycotted them and sent a bunch of Gay athletes in his place knowing it would not only piss off the government, but the Russian people as well. Then there were other "reasonable" establishment leaders like David Cameron, comparing Putin to Hitler.
[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 and no matter how many Americans he fucks over in the process[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51770895]More that you don't have much right to criticize when you defended/ignored Obama when he did much worse.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the strawman argument
Ruining Russia's economy via sanctions is no worse than threatening a war with Mexico? Am I missing the logic chain here
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51770756]All this talk fretting of war with China rings a little hollow. Many of the people who have suddenly become very concerned about how the actions of the United States might be perceived by a foreign country never had any problem with Obama sending extra troops to Russia's doorstep in a naked act of provocation, in fact they found it extremely laudable. I guess the concerns of Vladimir Putin just aren't worth as much consideration as Xi Jingping's. Seems that anti-Trumpists are willing to morph into anything they need to be to attack Trump most effectively, even if it makes them total hypocrites. Trump hasn't really done anything yet, other than his phone call with the Taiwanese President. I can understand why the Chinese might be upset about it, but I believe they're overreacting, especially in comparison to the Russians, who've had to put up with far worse from the USA. Until he does something like move a bunch of ships into the SCS, or using the CIA to topple China-friendly governments, I'll assume that this is just more desperate grasping at straws to make him out to be a far worse man than he actually is.[/QUOTE] Find one single post where I ever lauded acts of aggression towards foreign nations and you can call me a hypocrite. Otherwise, you're just shadowboxing against arguments I've never made. You can't just make up whichever version of reality best suits your narrative and call it fact.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51771085]Thanks for the strawman argument[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51771100]Find one single post where I ever lauded acts of aggression towards foreign nations and you can call me a hypocrite. Otherwise, you're just shadowboxing against arguments I've never made. You can't just make up whichever version of reality best suits your narrative and call it fact.[/QUOTE] Sorry, please direct me to the posts, which I'm sure must exist, of you calling for Obama's impeachment over [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/3000-us-troops-roll-up-at-russias-doorstep/"]this[/URL]. [QUOTE=Code3Response;51771093]Ruining Russia's economy via sanctions is no worse than threatening a war with Mexico? Am I missing the logic chain here[/QUOTE] Trump hasn't threatened a war with Mexico, he will most likely use some for of economic pressure to get them to pay for the wall in some way, which, yes, is absolutely equivalent to the Russian sanctions.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771039]...President's of both parties have ... ...No worse than Obama... Obama insulted ...[/QUOTE] My point was that you accuse Clinton of being a warmonger just because she wanted a no fly zone, while at the same time deflecting 8 concerns with [I]"but Obama"[/I], [I]"but he said he was going to do it so it's fine"[/I], [I]"it's his charm"[/I], [I]"yes that's legit but not his fault"[/I] and of course [QUOTE=Whoaly;51771039][B]I'll admit I'm a bit concerned about some of the stuff he says on this, but I would be surprised if anything horrible truly came of it.[/B][/QUOTE] How can you apply this terrible logic to defend obvious destabilizing actions while at the same time being so against Clinton's no fly zone? Literally not a single one of your counter arguments even attempted to address the fact that the actions are causing damage to international relations. How the [I]fuck[/I] can you be so against Clinton's no fly zone when [B]Trump's fucking nuclear arms race[/B] is deflected with simply [I]"yeah, I'd be surprised if it leads to anything"[/I] in spite of you admitting to being concerned about it?
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771118]Sorry, please direct me to the posts, which I'm sure must exist, of you calling for Obama's impeachment over [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/3000-us-troops-roll-up-at-russias-doorstep/"]this[/URL]. [/QUOTE] Trole! Trole in the [URL="https://facepunch.com/forumdisplay.php?f=396"]dungeon[/URL]! So you are just assuming BDA called for Obama's impeachment? What
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771118]Sorry, please direct me to the posts, which I'm sure must exist, of you calling for Obama's impeachment over [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/3000-us-troops-roll-up-at-russias-doorstep/"]this[/URL]. Trump hasn't threatened a war with Mexico, he will most likely use some for of economic pressure to get them to pay for the wall in some way, which, yes, is absolutely equivalent to the Russian sanctions.[/QUOTE] A lack of evidence of opposition is not evidence of support. You need to step back down to Earth, Whoaly. Quit with the strawman shit and address the points that are actually being made. You said you were worried that Clinton would drag us into war with a superpower, while Trump's administration seems to be doing the exact same thing with China. Our National Security Council is telling us that we are "no doubt" going to be at war with China in the coming years. The Chinese military leadership is saying the same thing, and openly posturing ships in the South China Sea (much like you are CRI icizing Obama doing) in direct response to Trump's actions during his first few weeks as president. Meanwhile, Trump is calling for another nuclear arms race and a strong interventionist military presence throughout the world, including Mexico (for some baffling reason). How is THAT not concerning to you, when Clinton's No Fly Zone is a cause for international nuclear war in your eyes? Again, deflecting this into strawman arguments about Obama is not a valid response.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771118]Trump hasn't threatened a war with Mexico, he will most likely use some for of economic pressure to get them to pay for the wall in some way, which, yes, is absolutely equivalent to the Russian sanctions.[/QUOTE] Sanctioning Russia's economy for annexing fucking Crimea and waging a "proxy" war with Ukraine is absolutely equivalent to attempting to force one of your biggest trade partner to pay for a ridiculous undertaking that wouldn't even stop or significantly reduce illegal immigration if it were possible to build it? What the fuck are you on?
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51770149]The sample location was random, It's the PPP. The sample size was sufficient. A confidence interval of 3.5% at 95% was achieved with this study. Doubting this is anti-scientific, and I seriously hope you aren't doing that. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] "pretty unlikely" is like 0.00000000000000001% by the way[/QUOTE] Uh, I'm not doubting anything. I'm just clarifying that only having a big sample size isn't evidence of good methodology. You need both. Your post made it sound like you were saying that it's impossible to have a skewed poll with a big sample size, which isn't the case. The poll's methodology sounds fine, your explanation of why there couldn't possibly be a skew did not. [editline]3rd February 2017[/editline] [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] ... So you will defend absolutely anything that Trump does, even to intentional irrationality, even if it's blatantly fucking over the people of this country, simply because you think Clinton is entitled? What point is there in engaging you at all, in that case? If you're openly admitting that being logical and rational is less important to you than sticking it to Clinton, then you're just a troll.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51771182]... So you will defend absolutely anything that Trump does, even to intentional irrationality, even if it's blatantly fucking over the people of this country, simply because you think Clinton is entitled? What point is there in engaging you at all, in that case? If you're openly admitting that being logical and rational is less important to you than sticking it to Clinton, then you're just a troll.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, there is a breaking point with me where I'd no longer consider myself a Trump supporter, but we haven't reached it yet. But even if I do reach it I'll never be able to say "I think Clinton should have won."
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771203]Don't get me wrong, there is a breaking point with me where I'd no longer consider myself a Trump supporter, but we haven't reached it yet. But even if I do reach it I'll never be able to say "I think Clinton should have won."[/QUOTE] I'm not asking you to say that you think Clinton should have won, just to understand that criticizing Trump is not the same thing as cultish devotion to Clinton, or Obama, or whoever. You're fighting against strawmen -- making assumptions about what I must support if I don't like Trump rather than just replying to arguments I'm actually making. [B]You[/B] seem to be the one with cultish devotion, if I had to point a finger at anybody in this conversation. You refuse to acknowledge anything bad about Trump at all, even to a self-acknowledged point of intentional irrationality, just to avoid an unfavorable comparison to other presidents and presidential candidates. Hell, your language here seems to suggest that you can't even be a "Trump Supporter" if you're critical of any part of his policy or rhetoric. It's not a zero sum game, man. It's possible to support some things, and be critical of others. The world's not so black and white.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771203]Don't get me wrong, there is a breaking point with me where I'd no longer consider myself a Trump supporter, but we haven't reached it yet. But even if I do reach it I'll never be able to say "I think Clinton should have won."[/QUOTE] Sorry mate, your way of thinking is flawed. I don't even want to present you sources on why I think so because evidently, even when presented, you will stretch any imagination of the truth to fit your narrative. There's a word for this, and it's called "delusional" . No matter what setting, whether professional or casual, spouting off this nonsense you're purporting, will just have the common populace deem you an idiot. Mostly everyone will see you as that person who sits in a bunker after nuclear fallout mumbling "But Clinton" and "But Obama". No one should give you the time of day to seriously have a discussion with you if you will not acknowledge the facts supported by recorded statements and instead openly claim that you will stretch the truth in any way you can.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771118]Sorry, please direct me to the posts, which I'm sure must exist, of you calling for Obama's impeachment over [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/3000-us-troops-roll-up-at-russias-doorstep/"]this[/URL].[/QUOTE] please direct me to a post where you declare your hatred of kicking puppies, or i'll be justified in saying you support kicking puppies
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51771118]Sorry, please direct me to the posts, which I'm sure must exist, of you calling for Obama's impeachment over [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/3000-us-troops-roll-up-at-russias-doorstep/"]this[/URL].[/QUOTE] This is not how the burden of proof works. BDA is not responsible for combing through his own postings to help prove you right. You have to find your own proof, and if you can't, your argument was never worth shit to begin with. Deflecting to a different point just demonstrates you can't defend your position and needed to move the goalposts to avoid losing the argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.