[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Johnnypenso]

And now for something completely different...

It's a lock!

Using the closing moments of her speech to tout her credentials, the Queen made it clear that she has never used e-mail and has only had sex with one person “very occasionally.”

 

[Milouse]

Sure it does refer to Tornado's post. How do you margin of error subjective reason between false and pants on fire...

You don't, that's why you shouldn't use "margin of error" in such cases - note that you're now talking about how data has been written - nor in your previous sentence, where you were talking about how the data has been read.

@Northstar , no, there is no point of asking "which letters?" when someone said "all the alphabet", nor to ask for 26 links to the letters as sources. But i'm glad you decided to put and end to this nonsensical nitpicking, albeit convenient to avoid the real subject.

You can easily postulate that the number of articles Wikipedia has in each language is something that Wikipedia can report and graph without much controversy, since it is literally just counting. Is it a page? Yes? Add one.

No, since they are sometimes debates on wikipedia to include a page or not, specially about a person. But you're quoting only half of my answer anyway...

Looking over the site for the past thirty minutes or so, I also see an awful lot of fact checking when it comes to a politician claiming another politician said something. So when Hilary makes a tweet saying "look at this dumb thing Trump said" and it turns out that Trump said that dumb thing, she's gets a true; and vice versa. I have to imagine this makes up a decent portion of the "facts" being checked, especially with how long both of these two have been in the public eye and how much Trump shoots his mouth off at everyone who slights him; when I had thought based on how the graph was being presented in this thread that Politifact had more to do with things of much more consequence than schoolyard he said/she said.

Why are you focusing on the bottom of the chart, which is of limited interest (someone not lying can still be not that much competent, or be smart enough to not get caught by using careful wording)? How about the idea to raise our democracies standards so that someone constantly lying and saying dumb things won't find an army of defenders trying to point out that someone else could look worst if we assumed everything is probably skewed are rigged.

Also, i find interesting that your thirty minutes of diagonal reading and following conclusions find so much supports from the usual nitpicker. Which, somehow, fit quite well with the Confirmation Bias i was mentioning in my original post.

 

[Northstar]

@Northstar , no, there is no point of asking "which letters?"

Yes, yes there is. Admittedly I never went to school in France so I have no clue what's expected when sourcing things but mentioning what statements you used in a study about statements is kind of expected in the U.S.

when someone said "all the alphabet", nor to ask for 26 links to the letters as sources.

I wouldn't expect that and it's not really the same thing.

But i'm glad you decided to put and end to this nonsensical nitpicking, albeit convenient to avoid the real subject.

Which is the actual issue in your mind? That politicians lie? I've said that already. That Politifact is credible? I also said that already. That Trump lies more than most? Again, I've said that already.

YOU are the one avoiding the issues I've been bringing up!

 

[Tornado]

Yeah, you pretty clearly don't actually read the posts before you respond to them. Confirmation bias about what?

 

[Milouse]

but mentioning what statements you used in a study about statements is kind of expected in the U.S.

Which has been done in the first place (by a reference to the full list of statements used, since its a full list and not a subset). We're stuck in a loop, i don't know if you're trolling or if our brains are wired differently.

Yeah, you pretty clearly don't actually read the posts before you respond to them. Confirmation bias about what?

YOU didn't read:

An explanation could be that with Internet, the brain has so many sources that it can always select the information that cements any opinion, in disregard with truth (this is know as Confirmation Bias).

And the reason it is related to your post:

i find interesting that your thirty minutes of diagonal reading and following conclusions find so much supports from the usual nitpicker

It's a reference to the "likes" on your post, not the content of your post.

 

[Northstar]

Which has been done in the first place (by a reference to the full list of statements used, since its a full list and not a subset).

We are stuck in this loop because you don't seem to understand the concept of sourcing (which is odd given your experience).

Tell you what, go back to this post, actually read it and get back to me.

i don't know if you're trolling

Odd, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Milouse]

Trump is an instinctive dealmaker. He will build rapport with world leaders and not be a hot blooded unilateralist interventionist

Trump knows Bush drove us into a ditch in Iraq.

Your post would make sense - and is still worth reading - but it's hard to match the fantasy Trump from your post with the actual man: (and that's just One exemple)

 

[Tornado]

So because "the usual nitpicker" liked my post because I gave an assessment you didn't like (and I know you didn't like it because you responded to what I said without actually reading it, acting as if my issue with it was a specific part of the graph) of a website that you hold so dear based on what I saw on it when I looked it over, that could be considered proof of confirmation bias?



I'll tell you what Milhouse: If you can spend half as much time reading and responding to what people actually write in this topic as you spend coming up with assumed reasons for why they posted and talking about those instead, people might be more willing to engage you in debate. Until then we seem to be done here.

 

[Dotini]

"Democrats should ask Hillary to step aside."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

 

[Tornado]

Ooooooohh. Weiner's ex-wife was a Clinton aide. That explains it. I had been wondering how Weiner actually had any link to Clinton. CNN kept mentioning her name when they were talking about it yesterday but not saying why that was relevant.

 

[Milouse]

@Tornado You totally missed my point, which was to compare how some people gave different treatments about how to judge the "how" depending of the "what" ; and that doesn't require any judgement about the "what".

Which leads me to this:

because I gave an assessment you didn't like

which is just a misleading interpretation, that should have make you think twice before writing

you spend coming up with assumed reasons for why they posted

Tell you what, go back to this post, actually read it and get back to me.

It has already been answered, and you know it. This discussion has became noise in the thread, let's stop it.

 

[Northstar]

It has already been answered, and you know it.

Where would this supposed post be? Narnia? Maybe the North Pole? Perhaps I put together a voyage to the bottom of the sea!

 

[Dotini]

Ooooooohh. Weiner's ex-wife was a Clinton aide. That explains it. I had been wondering how Weiner actually had any link to Clinton. CNN kept mentioning her name when they were talking about it yesterday but not saying why that was relevant.

They are still married. She only moved out recently. They shared devices which the FBI seized. She let a screw-loose pedophile pervert handle classified email. She stands to be indicted and arrested at any moment and she is currently Hillary's closest aide (lover, too?). HRC will have to decide between her loyalty to Abedin and her desire to ascend to the throne room of corruption. Easy choice. Huma will twist slowly, slowly in the wind.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Irony. Hillary may ultimately be done in, not by an email scandal, not by Benghazi, not by her handling of her husband's various dalliances, not by being completely unlikable, but by Huma's Weiner.

 

[killerjimbag]

Watching Jake Tapper,grilling the little weasel Podesta. Spin master at his best. Tanden and him. Incredible . John ah,ah Podesta.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Perhaps I put together a voyage to the bottom of the sea!

No need; a mere trip to the depths of the author's comment section should be enough to get the answer I think everyone needs to end this discussion:

You are correct that this isn’t a scientific graph, and I would never claim it as such.

 

[BobK]

It's looking increasingly likely to me that Hillary may become Nixon II.

Might be a good idea to look into just who this Tim Kaine person is, since there's a reasonable chance he may be becoming President in the not terribly distant future.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No need; a mere trip to the depths of the author's comment section should be enough to get the answer I think everyone needs to end this discussion:

And don't forget:

It may not be 100% objective

Google translation from left wing media speak into English: It's not objective in the least.

Note: Google translation is not literal and for humourous purposes only. Any resemblence to a true Google translation is coincidence.

 

[Johnnypenso]

delete...I think I have a mouse issue..third or fourth accidental duplicate post in a week...

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Google translation from left wing media speak into English: It's not objective in the least..

Fair play, nothing gets past you - not even the dirty tricks* of the Mann Metrics Network.

 

[Biggles]

Your post would make sense - and is still worth reading - but it's hard to match the fantasy Trump from your post with the actual man: (and that's just One exemple)

@ Dotini: M. Milouse has put it quite succinctly - the actual Trump doesn't bear any resemblance to the person you would like him to be. He's a loud-mouthed narcissist who has proven himself, time & again, to be small-minded, thin-skinned & vindictive. When Trump talks openly about "bombing the ****" out of ISIS, & of "taking the oil", do you suppose that this can be done without the use of force & without far-reaching repercussions?

It's ironic that Mclaren seems to have latched onto Putin's perspective on the US Presidential race as demonstrative of something. Putin IS a "practicing "populist nationalist". His popularity relies on distracting the people's attention away from the corruption, inequality & poverty endemic within Russia & focusing their attention on foreign expansionism in an attempt to reconstitute a "Greater Russia". It's the oldest trick in the "populist nationalist's" book.

 

[McLaren]

At least he answers the question.

You're in no position at all to be chiming in after how many times you dodged replying to posts, or edited out an entire argument just to respond with, "I can't reply to everyone" to the underlined.

So we've gone from "I can't reply in 3 hours" to "I have too many notifications".

Your latest post after my reply was just 2 posts down from it, but I'm guessing you just "didn't see it." I'll help you out since you continued on your whole, "Assange is trying to influence the outcome" replying to @LMSCorvetteGT2.

2) To continue to support Assange's asylum claim and condone his actions in publishing the e-mails, which would therefore make them a foreign government openly trying to influence the outcome of the election.

Corruption that reveals the Saudi family has reportedly funded 20% of Hillary's campaign to become President, despite the fact a foreign countries are prohibited from influencing elections by funding candidates?

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure.

According to the Federal Election Commission, political candidates are not allowed to receive campaign donations from foreign nationals. Foreign nationals include: foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations, partnerships, persons with foreign citizenship, and non-permanent resident immigrants. Permanent residents, or "green card" holders, may donate to political candidates.

Seems pretty much the same by your logic. Maybe 1 step further will do it.

Scott Foval was immediately removed following this video, but it's clear as day; Foval admits in the video he is linked to the DNC & Hillary's campaign team. The video reveals that not only does his group pay people to actively disrupt Trump rallies, but coordinate and train them how to do so. People in the video gleefully admitting, "Yeah, that was us!" Foval admits that they even pay homeless people to do whatever they want in exchange for dinner & a shower. There is a point where Foval says they have a double blind so the campaign/DNC can deny they knew anything about it. At another, he says they have a tactic called Birdogging to disrupt rallies; an e-mail leaked shows a Hillary's campaign manager suggests it might be a tactic to employ to gain support from Hispanics.

Once again, you point out 1 side as unacceptable, but conveniently somehow miss that the opposing side is just as guilty. What's more is that your claims are nothing but assumption against Ecudaor/Assange that you deem as "influencing", whilst there's a lot more evidence linked to the Dems doing the same.

Assange's e-mails are bringing forth the wrong doings of our current government, but you seem more worried about what he's doing, rather than what he's revealing.

I've just read a hundred pages of submission in regard of her email woes, nothing new there but nothing that shows how her foreign policy or diplomacy works?

It displays Hillary's conduct over seas, whilst you assume how Trump's conduct will be based on his campaign behavior towards Hillary.

But of course you didn't see anything. That document is far too much for you to comprehend as you seem to think, "foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador" pertains the US when it clearly says they're at a foreign function, i.e., not in the US.

Your original statement was:

I posted that directly after the FBI quotes.

You requoted the part where local ambassadors were upset (they're US ambassadors, as you know) that they didn't arrive at parties with her, other than that you've failed to source the record that you implied you could source.

I sourced it in the next post from the FBI. Those are excerpts from it.

Don't try to lecture me on failing to source something when you've shown twice in a row you can't even read an excerpt correctly & think it says

"
Hillary didn't insult or embarrass foreign ambassadors with her refusal to follow protocols. US peeps just butthurt they didn't party with her. Secret Service agents were just different at times. Totally no reason as to why.

You've stuck your fingers so far in your ears & closed your eyes so tight so you don't have to actually address that Hillary isn't a shining beacon of US-foreign relations compared to Trump. You're a waste of time to reply to.

It's ironic that Mclaren seems to have latched onto Putin's perspective on the US Presidential race as demonstrative of something. Putin IS a "practicing "populist nationalist". His popularity relies on distracting the people's attention away from the corruption, inequality & poverty endemic within Russia & focusing their attention on foreign expansionism in an attempt to reconstitute a "Greater Russia". It's the oldest trick in the "populist nationalist's" book.

All I just read was a bunch of gibberish that acts like Putin is trying to pull a Hitler. Much like Ten, just another poster that believes Putin & Hillary aren't really at tension with one another. Hilarious that it's the same 3 peeps who like each others posts and misconstrue replies to all push the same narrative about Trump.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But of course you didn't see anything. That document is far too much for you to comprehend as you seem to think, "foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador" pertains the US when it clearly says they're at a foreign function, i.e., not in the US.

Yes, but if you'd read it you'd see it says "with the local US ambassador". Glass houses, stones

You can flap all you like but there's still no reference in there to her foreign policy or foreign diplomacy skills. It was you who made that statement in the first place and so far your counter has been that she doesn't observe limousine protocol.

Don't try to lecture me on failing to source something when you've shown twice in a row you can't even read an excerpt correctly

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You're in no position at all to be chiming in after how many times you dodged replying to posts

And you're in no position to hold different people to a different standard. My history, whatever it may be, does not absolve you from actually answering the question.

 

[McLaren]

And you're in no position to hold different people to a different standard. My history, whatever it may be, does not absolve you from actually answering the question.

The irony. You're holding me to the standard that I should answer someone's question when you can't even uphold yourself to that standard. It's no surprise you edited my post once again to avoid the call out.

Take a seat and go back to just not replying at all.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You're holding me to the standard that I should answer someone's question when you can't even uphold yourself to that standard.

Frustrating, isn't it?

Get down off your high horse. You were asked a question. You didn't answer it; instead, you focused on the posting habits of other users. And then you act outraged when people expect you to practice what you preach.

 

[McLaren]

Frustrating, isn't it?

Get down off your high horse. You were asked a question. You didn't answer it; instead, you focused on the posting habits of other users. And then you act outraged when people expect you to practice what you preach.

I actually did answer it.

Because his rhetoric and limited understanding of foreign policy comes across as extremely aggressive? Because his diplomatic skills have demonstrably been limited to flinging insults back?

Of which have been nothing but based on his attitude.

You're attempting to catch me in some sort of trap, but you're just playing sidekick to the man because you decided to ignore our previous discussion about Assange influencing the election & think this is your way of engaging me again.

Yes, but if you'd read it you'd see it says "with the local US ambassador". Glass houses, stones

You can flap all you like but there's still no reference in there to her foreign policy or foreign diplomacy skills. It was you who made that statement in the first place and so far your counter has been that she doesn't observe limousine protocol.

So, it does after reviewing it again.

It does still highlight Hillary's disregard for rules, but since that's not the topic, I apologize.

 

[Milouse]

just another poster that believes Putin & Hillary aren't really at tension with one another

Putin is at tension with every leader but Bashar al-Assad.
Birds of a feather flock together.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Putin is at tension with every leader but Bashar al-Assad.
Birds of a feather flock together.

The point is why do we need to be...that's what I think @McLaren is getting at in his post, at least one point. The other point is showing that Clinton's team clearly thinks there is a potential overseas factor trying to hamper this election. And such accusations wont go over very kindly, especially when they're false (we don't know for sure).

 

[Sanji Himura]

The point is why do we need to be...that's what I think @McLaren is getting at in his post, at least one point. The other point is showing that Clinton's team clearly thinks there is a potential overseas factor trying to hamper this election. And such accusations wont go over very kindly, especially when they're false (we don't know for sure).

The point is, we don't know if Russia is influencing the election, but we are absolutely sure that Assange is doing it (howbeit indirectly). For every email that is put out by Wikileaks, we are that much sure that Hillary is a corporate fraud.