US Presidential Candidates

As is the Trident missile one Tensh, which is the one I was looking for.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

dscott8 wrote:

DDHv wrote:Don't ever forget the effects of media bias.

From:

http://constitution.com/trump-leading-6 ... 00-voters/

"The sad part is that so many people today believe everything they hear and see from the liberal mainstream media. They take the reports as gospel.

Among other things described, a group of graduate students did their own poll: 1,000 people from each state, evenly divided between R, D, & I, and got much different results than the media polls. Ouch.

Unfortunately, "May you live in interesting times." seems to be happening, and is likely to be lethal for at least some of us
"

Media bias? That link leads to constitution.com, whose content is emphatically anti-Clinton and pro-Trump. They're even giving away a customized "Trump Truck".

One thing that irritates me about Trump is the way he turns everything into a conspiracy against himself. He calls the press biased when they report the exact words that come out of his mouth. He claims that dozens of polls conducted by reputable independent pollsters are faked. He's already whining that if he doesn't win, it's because the elections will be "rigged". He sounds like a teenager trying desperately to convince his parents that it wasn't his fault that he rolled the family car.

I find Trump irritating also.

All polls are biased in some way. Unfortunately, today most politicians seem to biased in favor of themselves. They are supposed to be hired, not self serving. This isn't just in the US, look at many examples in other nations also. When you find the rare honest person in office, cherish and provide support - the "elite" won't.

From:

http://constitution.com/republicans-vot ... n-ashamed/

There is no pejorative that can be lobbed at Donald Trump that can’t also be directed at Hillary Clinton.

This is the problem. I can understand someone voting 3rd party. I can understand someone holding their nose and voting for Trump. I cannot understand voting for Clinton

DDHv wrote:All polls are biased in some way. Unfortunately, today most politicians seem to biased in favor of themselves. They are supposed to be hired, not self serving. This isn't just in the US, look at many examples in other nations also. When you find the rare honest person in office, cherish and provide support - the "elite" won't.

DDHv, could you please respond to criticism raised against your points?

Or have you decided that you'd rather not leave your safe space?

DDHv wrote:From:

http://constitution.com/republicans-vot ... n-ashamed/

There is no pejorative that can be lobbed at Donald Trump that can’t also be directed at Hillary Clinton.

This is the problem. I can understand someone voting 3rd party. I can understand someone holding their nose and voting for Trump. I cannot understand voting for Clinton

I actually can understand it, Douglas. There are many, many elitist hogs getting fat in her trough. Those head hogs have employees or subcontractors that make a killing off of her corporate cronyism and pay-to-play programs. Trump just doesn't have the loyal network to pull it off like Hillary has proven she can.

As for the common voter, there I would have to agree with you. I especially don't understand how poor minorities can give this Democrat a chance to improve their lot. Dem policies are bad enough as the last 60 years have proven, but this corrupt pol? She will take money from the fat cats and leave the minorities dependent on whatever scraps her party deign to brush off their table.

PeterZ wrote:As for the common voter, there I would have to agree with you. I especially don't understand how poor minorities can give this Democrat a chance to improve their lot. Dem policies are bad enough as the last 60 years have proven, but this corrupt pol? She will take money from the fat cats and leave the minorities dependent on whatever scraps her party deign to brush off their table.

Have you considered the possibility that the Republican's failure to interact with minority groups in a positive way over the past couple of decades may have something to do with it? When one of your main talking points is "we want muslims and immigrants out of the country" (or similarly odious talking points about LGBT people or people of color), is it surprising that people of that background are not as inclined to vote conservative as they might otherwise be?

The E wrote:

DDHv wrote:All polls are biased in some way. Unfortunately, today most politicians seem to biased in favor of themselves. They are supposed to be hired, not self serving. This isn't just in the US, look at many examples in other nations also. When you find the rare honest person in office, cherish and provide support - the "elite" won't.

DDHv, could you please respond to criticism raised against your points?

Or have you decided that you'd rather not leave your safe space?

I am not Douglas, but I did sleep in a Comfort Inn last night.

Douglass' point was that all polls are skewed. If one polls each group, one finds that Hillary doesn't have the support of anyone but Democrats. How accurate that poll is depends on who actually goes out to vote. All the polls make assumptions about who will or will not go out and vote. Those polls weight respondents on the likelihood to vote based on past performance.

Here is where things get tricky. In the environment of political correctness in the US, there are POVs that people are reluctant to share. That makes certain people far less likely to respond to polls at all and if they do to lie. How are the non-respondents weighted in the polls? is the assumption that non-respondents hold no opinion or that they are equally distributed in the population? If so, that would reflect a selection bias that the polls do not capture. Everyone that commissions these publically released polls messages those assumptions to best show whatever the client paying for the polls may desire. This has a benefit because poll results do shape the campaign regardless of its ultimate accuracy.

All of this tells me that the responses to the polls are far less important than the model for turnout. Can that corrupt lying sack of shit Hillary encourage her supporters to come out in larger numbers than Trump supporters? There is some social media data that suggests that Hillary is not very successful at encouraging her supporters to be passionate. Recent national polls tightening again illustrates the shallowness of her support.

Edit: grammar

DDHv wrote:..snip..
From:

http://constitution.com/republicans-vot ... n-ashamed/

There is no pejorative that can be lobbed at Donald Trump that can’t also be directed at Hillary Clinton.

This is the problem. I can understand someone voting 3rd party. I can understand someone holding their nose and voting for Trump. I cannot understand voting for Clinton

I don't understand people who would vote for Trump, because any other alternative is magnitudes better.

A person that during a security briefing asks 3 times why the US doesn't use their nukes.
A person that can't handle criticism without lashing out and calling people names (or sue them).
A person that cheats his contractors.
A person that regularly lies and makes up facts.
A person that regularly insults women and contenders.

This is list can go on for quite a long way.

You know, I rather take crony-ism than a loose cannon that just opens his mouth and spouts whatever comes to mind.

Anyone voting for Trump and thinks the US will be better for it is in for a rude awakening. Trump doesn't care about liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans or people. He only cares about himself and self-aggrandizing.

Luckily, I don't live in the US so I can watch the current monkey-show of an election from the outside. I always find it amusing how polarized the US has become where the words liberal and conservative has become derogatory terms to slander others.

If someone really feel the need to name-call their opponents, do you really think that person is eligible for public office?

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:As for the common voter, there I would have to agree with you. I especially don't understand how poor minorities can give this Democrat a chance to improve their lot. Dem policies are bad enough as the last 60 years have proven, but this corrupt pol? She will take money from the fat cats and leave the minorities dependent on whatever scraps her party deign to brush off their table.

Have you considered the possibility that the Republican's failure to interact with minority groups in a positive way over the past couple of decades may have something to do with it? When one of your main talking points is "we want muslims and immigrants out of the country" (or similarly odious talking points about LGBT people or people of color), is it surprising that people of that background are not as inclined to vote conservative as they might otherwise be?

The Republican Party began in 1854 to free blacks from slavery championed by Democrats. The Republicans voted 80% in the House and 82% in the Senate for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Democrats voted 61% and 69%. This act was necessary due to Democrat sponsored Jim Crow Laws from the reconstruction. Republicans have not supported policies that have turned the black inner city communities into crime infested racially divided ghettos. Republican policies have been right and Democrat policies have been wrong for the inner city poor.

Yet, Democrat demonization of Republicans have proven that machine politics and demonization of the opposition can will elections at the expense of keeping the people being taken advantage of ignorant of anything except the party line. Yes, the Republican elites have been encouraged to stay away from campaigning in the inner cities. All the punditry suggest there are better strategies because it will take years to persuade a sufficiency of minorities to break free from the mental ruts have established in those communities. This is the biggest indictment if the Republican elites in my eyes. Farging cowards should have gone in an campaigned instead of consigning an entire segments of the population to the tender mercies of the Democrat voter planation. Inaction is complicity in that Democrat travesty.

Please don't talk to me about the LGBT community and Democrats. Democrats are willing to blindly support a religion that is far more antagonistic to the LGBT community than anything the Republicans ever supported. I believe 40% of Muslims worldwide support sharia. Do you know what sharia prescribes for gays and lesbians? Do we hear anything from the Democrats about this? No. Do we hear anything from Germany about this barbarism? No. All Democrats and other progressives do is continue the demonization of American conservatives by comparing more traditional views of marital relationships to the worst sorts of bigotry. Are Muslims bigots in the eyes of progressives and Democrats since they hold far harsher opinions of gays and lesbians than even the most vile adherent of the Westboro Baptist Church? No, they are not.

Annachie wrote:As is the Trident missile one Tensh, which is the one I was looking for.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

This part?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMk

It´s from the first episode of the first season of Yes, Prime Minister (The Grand Design).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHP_LOtx6Ik

PeterZ wrote:I and not Douglas, but I did sleep in a Comfort Inn last night.

Douglass' point was that all polls are skewed. If one polls each group, one finds that Hillary doesn't have the support of anyone but Democrats. How accurate that poll is depends on who actually goes out to vote. All the polls make assumptions about who will or will not go out and vote. Those polls weight respondents on the likelihood to vote based on past performance.

Does one find this? Which polls show these results? Can you link to them?

And well. That wasn't exactly the point DDHv was making, was it. Here, let me quote him for reference:

Among other things described, a group of graduate students did their own poll: 1,000 people from each state, evenly divided between R, D, & I, and got much different results than the media polls. Ouch.

So. Assuming this poll exists, and assuming DDHvs recollection of their methodology is correct, it is kind of expected that it would show a different result than other polls using other methodologies. The poll results we usually see are results from polls designed to get an accurate picture of what a representative sample of the population thinks about a given question. However, the poll as described by DDHv isn't representative of the US population, apart from methodological issues as explained in the article I linked to.

The representative polls we have all paint a very similar picture: Clinton leads somewhere between 5 and 8%. Even polls deliberately designed to be free of pro-Clinton bias (like the one commissioned by Breitbart) agree on this. To claim that these results, which I apparently need to remind you have been proven to be quite accurate and a good indicator for the eventual election result, are "biased" is folly. It's an example of seeing reality but refusing to believe in it.

As you have explained, you have reasons not to vote for Clinton. You even have reasons to proselytize on that point. Which is all fair. But have you considered that those same reasons make you unable to accurately evaluate information not fitting your world view? That what you assume about the general sentiment among the population isn't based on data, but rather an accumulation of anecdotes?


DDHv's study, by using a non-representative sample of the US population, cannot be used as evidence that studies which do try to get a representative sample are biased or wrong. To claim that it can is firmly in "not even wrong" territory.

Here is where things get tricky. In the environment of political correctness in the US, there are POVs that people are reluctant to share. That makes certain people far less likely to respond to polls at all and if they do to lie. How are the non-respondents weighted in the polls? is the assumption that non-respondents hold no opinion or that they are equally distributed in the population? If so, that would reflect a selection bias that the polls do not capture. Everyone that commissions these publically released polls messages those assumptions to best show whatever the client paying for the polls may desire. This has a benefit because poll results do shape the campaign regardless of its ultimate accuracy.

But again: Past performance shows that, on average, polls do paint a reasonably accurate picture of reality. There's a weight of evidence linking poll results to election results, and true upsets are relatively rare these days (fivethirtyeight, a blog dedicated to statistical analysis, is based around this sort of data-driven approach, I recommend you check it out sometime).

All of this tells me that the responses to the polls are far less important than the model for turnout. Can that corrupt lying sack of shit Hillary encourage her supporters to come out in larger numbers than Trump supporters? There is some social media data that suggests that Hillary is not very successful at encouraging her supporters to be passionate. Recent national polls tightening again illustrates the shallowness of her support.

However, while nationwide polls show the race tightening (i.e. Trump gaining), state polls show Clinton firmly in the lead.

Please don't talk to me about the LGBT community and Democrats. Democrats are willing to blindly support a religion that is far more antagonistic to the LGBT community than anything the Republicans ever supported. I believe 40% of Muslims worldwide support sharia. Do you know what sharia prescribes for gays and lesbians? Do we hear anything from the Democrats about this? No. Do we hear anything from Germany about this barbarism? No. All Democrats and other progressives do is continue the demonization of American conservatives by comparing more traditional views of marital relationships to the worst sorts of bigotry. Are Muslims bigots in the eyes of progressives and Democrats since they hold far harsher opinions of gays and lesbians than even the most vile adherent of the Westboro Baptist Church? No, they are not.

Remind me, which party was it that was positioning itself as the hardline christian, biblethumping, gay-hating one again?