[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[CodeRedR51]

If you have to resort to insults, I guess that pretty much tells me all I need to know.

It was pretty obvious from the get-go what it was about. I'm not voting this year so I could care less, just thought I would share is all.

Well it's obvious what your alluding to, More Education = Democrat.

The graph may allude to that, not me specifically.

 

[DDastardly00]

The Democrats are going after Trump in the courts:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...imidation-in-4-states/7982406?section=science

They claim that Trump imploring people to monitor voting for signs of tampering has led to voters being intimidated and a concentrated effort to suppress voting, particularly in urban areas with high populations of minority groups.

Long on accusations, short on evidence, these lawsuits will go nowhere. I noticed they were all filed in swing states though. Gee, that isn't suspicious or anything....

Remember in 2008 and 2012 when the Black Panthers camped out in front of polling sites intimidating voters? I do.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/6/problems-black-panthers-surface-pa-polling-places/

 

[Dotini]

This whole 'we're educated so we know better and if you vote right wing you're basically an uneducated xenophobe idiot', is a presumption i see a lot with liberals in Europe too. Illusions of owning the moral high ground is what it is. Like the left wing won't have the exact same amount of idiots supporting their cause.

It reeks of them secretly wishing they could alter democracy, so the plebs could be prevented from having influence on the decision making process. Democracy is fine as long as you don't vote for the wrong party, "because then we need to get violent and hateful against these hate mongers!"

Exactly, except for one thing. In the US it is the underclasses, who are all armed to the teeth, who will kill the liberals.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Exactly, except for one thing. In the US it is the underclasses, who are all armed to the teeth, who will kill the liberals.

Eh nah, I've met plenty of rich people with cache's of weapons. Party affiliation doesn't stop that, just cause there is a trend that shows democrats like gun control

Gun control =/= gun abolishing

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Gun control =/= gun abolishing

Except to the NRA.

 

[huskeR32]

Who said there wasn't validity

I guess that's how I interpreted:

The facebook graph doesn't really say much

If I misread that, apologies.

--

EDIT 2: So now I've compared about 12 states with the Wikia source he used, and I see he's strictly using advanced degrees held. Which is already quite faulty cause the margin of people who hold one is very narrow. And will obviously show an age old divide politics in this and other developed nations have, a blue and white collar divide.

This, along with the huge increase in women (a demographic that traditionally leans more liberal) attaining college degrees during the last couple of decades, would seem to me the most likely explanations for any correlation between education and voting habits.

--

This whole 'we're educated so we know better and if you vote right wing you're basically an uneducated xenophobe idiot', is a presumption i see a lot with liberals in Europe too.

Who said that?

--

Long on accusations, short on evidence

A bit like those rigged Texas voting booths, wouldn't you say?

--

Gun control =/= gun abolishing

Hark!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Except to the NRA.

That's them, I'm not apart of the NRA so why would that matter, just seems like another comment out of slight from one side or the other.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I guess that's how I interpreted:

Probably because you read other people prior to me...

If I misread that, apologies.

You mis-defined it, not misread two different things. I'm saying it doesn't say much from a stats stand point in other words, I'm seeing a chart and after further investigation of narrowing down what each number means comes to a conclusion that he's using the most narrow of sample pools which doesn't tell me even more. Other than there is a potential for people with advanced degrees to vote Clinton based on the other estimation of her winning there.

This, along with the huge increase in women (a demographic that traditionally leans more liberal) attaining college degrees during the last couple of decades, would seem to me the most likely explanations for any correlation between education and voting habits.

You'd need a different data set for that, not the one he used. Since one he specifically used advanced degrees based on states who may or may not swing a certain way. Yes I agree there is a correlation to voting habits based on education, background, gender, race, work group and on and on. But this is a simple chart talking on education in the most focused scopes. Which would require your claim to be measured to see if that tradition of women voters just so happens to hold advanced degrees. But that would sway away from the purpose to me which is, does having an education mean you're more likely to vote democrat instead of republican.

If yes, then there is a potential to also show that more women hold said level of education and that also plays a factor and not just being educated.

Hark!

Da heck?

 

[DDastardly00]

A bit like those rigged Texas voting booths, wouldn't you say?

Like that time last week, when I said this:

This is a classic he-said, she-said scenario. Was there a video camera in the booth that recorded the footage of her making an error on her selections? No. Is there any conclusive evidence at all that it was user error? No. How does one go about determining fact from fiction when there is no conclusive evidence?

You should just stop trying, really.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's them, I'm not apart of the NRA so why would that matter, just seems like another comment out of slight from one side or the other.

I'm just pointing out that there are some parties to the debate that don't make the distinction, and misrepresent the issue.

Some of the election coverage that we have been getting pointed out Clinton's stance on gun control, specifically her plan to restict terror suspects from having access to weapons. Conversely, the NRA ran an ad campaign - the one with the woman calling 911 in response to a home invasion - claiming that Clinton wanted to restrict everyone's access.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm just pointing out that there are some parties to the debate that don't make the distinction, and misrepresent the issue.

Lobbyist tend to do that, I don't care what they have to say since each side has two pocketfuls of them in regards to pretty much anything. And am saying in my own eyes as a gun owner, gun control or laws =/= complete banning. And so we don't get deep into this issue I'll leave it at that.

Some of the election coverage that we have been getting pointed out Clinton's stance on gun control, specifically her plan to restict terror suspects from having access to weapons. Conversely, the NRA ran an ad campaign - the one with the woman calling 911 in response to a home invasion - claiming that Clinton wanted to restrict everyone's access.

Once again lobby groups are going to do that cause they're lobbyist.

 

[huskeR32]

Probably because you read other people prior to me...

Nope, I was responding to your words. Nobody else's.

You mis-defined it, not misread two different things.

No, I misread (read: misinterpreted) it.

I'm saying it doesn't say much from a stats stand point

But it does. Fifty states isn't exactly a small data set. The odds of the correlation in that table being a coincidence are microscopic.

Further implications are, of course, up for much debate, but the correlation is clearly there.

You'd need a different data set for that, not the one he used.

Oh, yeah, I know. I was just doing some additional musing after agreeing with your assessment that focusing on advanced degrees would skew the numbers.

But that would sway away from the purpose to me which is, does having an education mean you're more likely to vote democrat instead of republican.

That's been borne out by numerous studies before, this particular table isn't telling us anything new.

Da heck?

"Amen!"

"Hear hear!"

"Who has two thumbs are really agrees with this statement? This guy!"

I was just indicating an appreciation for a rare, level-headed assessment of the gun control question.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It was pretty obvious from the get-go what it was about. I'm not voting this year so I could care less, just thought I would share is all.

The graph may allude to that, not me specifically.

It isn't obvious, that's why I asked for your interpretation of it and why you found it interesting. If you can't even make a single sentence or two on what you think it means or why it's interesting it kind of begs the question why you posted it in the first place.

 

[DDastardly00]

Wow, Really?

David Attenborough on Trump: "We could shoot him, it's not a bad idea"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...io-times-interview-michael-gove-a7390476.html

Bad joke, very irresponsible of him to say.

 

[Biggles]

Exactly, except for one thing. In the US it is the underclasses, who are all armed to the teeth, who will kill the liberals.

Dotini, you are constantly ... gleefully ... invoking some kind of apocalyptic showdown. What - are you holed up in Seattle in a luxurious bunker with all mod cons & a decade's supply of good Cabernet?

If yes, then there is a potential to also show that more women hold said level of education and that also plays a factor and not just being educated.

The thing that stands out to me, is how "unrepresentative" GTPlanet is. I would be fascinated to know if there are any women/girls posting on GTPlanet?

 

[CodeRedR51]

If you can't even make a single sentence or two on what you think it means or why it's interesting it kind of begs the question why you posted it in the first place.

I think it means exactly what the guy is pointing out, which for the thousandth time is obvious. I also already told you why I posted it, or should I repeat that again too?

The thing that stands out to me, is how "unrepresentative" GTPlanet is. I would be fascinated to know if there are any women/girls posting on GTPlanet?

A few.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think it means exactly what the guy is pointing out, which for the thousandth time is obvious. I also already told you why I posted it, or should I repeat that again too?

A few.

He's not pointing anything out. He literally ends his post with a question asking you to figure it out. It's a slate of numbers. What it means is up to the interpretation of the observer.

 

[CodeRedR51]

He's not pointing anything out. He literally ends his post with a question asking you to figure it out. It's a slate of numbers. What it means is up to the interpretation of the observer.

It's pretty clear what he's hinting at.

 

[Dotini]

It's almost a certainty Hillary will be indicted in the next few days or weeks. IMO, she will never serve as president.

 

[Touring Mars]

Jeez, that guy talks fast

What are the chances of either candidate facing impeachment if and when they become President?

 

[Spurgy 777]

@Johnnypenso @R1600Turbo I really don't get why you're both being so awkward. Johnny, it's pretty obvious that the guy who made the Facebook post is saying that the less educated you are the more likely you are to vote for Trump. Turbo, was that really so hard to say rather than being unnecessarily evasive?

As for the table, it's pretty clear the person writing it is biased as he only used the set of data that best proved his point, if he had used the high school graduate data, which it could be argued is a better representation of the whole population, then he would have found no correlation. Not that correlation matters anyway.

 

[Dotini]

Jeez, that guy talks fast

What are the chances of either candidate facing impeachment if and when they become President?

In the increasingly unlikely event she is actually elected and inaugurated, it is a 100% certainty IMO she will be impeached if the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate.

Note, impeachment and conviction are different things.

For Trump to be impeached, the House at a minimum must be controlled by Dems. Very unlikely, and getting more so.

 

[samurai8juice]

Well it's obvious what your alluding to, More Education = Democrat.

Just pointing out Education doesn't equal intellect(even though I would say the average Trump supporter would be quite a few IQ Down in comparison).

Ironically the Democratic party started out as the layman's party, with much support coming from the West and South.

It's almost a certainty Hillary will be indicted in the next few days or weeks. IMO, she will never serve as president.

I would hate to be Comey right now. I feel like he's not getting enough credit. Whatever actions he takes, he can't win. If he sides with Republicans and pursues charges, or other measures against Clinton, Democrats cry foul for the next four years. If he takes the neutral side, he is ultimately taking the Democratic side in the eyes of the Republicans, and the Republicans will cry foul for another four years (or atleast one or two).

Jeez, that guy talks fast

What are the chances of either candidate facing impeachment if and when they become President?

Extremely likely.

 

[BobK]

Just because you say something loudly and frequently, that doesn't make it true.

You're right. Good thing I don't do that, then, isn't it?

By the same token, though, it wouldn't necessarily make it false, either. So just what is your point, if any?

 

[Dotini]

Something is blowing in the wind.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-files-on-bill-clinton-01-pardon-of-marc-rich
The FBI unexpectedly released 129 pages of documents related to an investigation closed without charges in 2005 into President Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, who had been married to a wealthy Democratic donor.

The file was posted online Monday but received little attention until the FBI noted it in a tweet on Tuesday afternoon. It comes as Director James Comey faces fire from Democrats and even some Republicans for releasing information about his renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of e-mail.

 

[mister dog]

Tin foil hat speaking here, but what would be the chance that the FBI wants to avoid Hillary taking the office at all costs?

Seems Trump is endorsed by quite a lot of high ranking military figures already (generals and the like), maybe them and the lads at the FBI fear Hillary for the troubles she might give them with setting the doors open for immigrants from the middle east, imposing stricter gun laws or picking fights with Russia?

 

[Dotini]

Dotini, you are constantly ... gleefully ... invoking some kind of apocalyptic showdown. What - are you holed up in Seattle in a luxurious bunker with all mod cons & a decade's supply of good Cabernet?

As the winner of many kart races and fencing bouts, I enjoy sporting with people who are under pressure. Something like a cat toying with a mouse, with a certain quality of schadenfreude.

I'm sitting on over a million dollars of property in and around Seattle, but alas no bunker. I do have a saltwater beach cabin, boathouse and bulkhead, and could live off the beach if need be. But frankly, I enjoy living in one of the most liberal cities on Earth. I enjoy wine, but lack an extensive wine cellar. I expect no immediate apocalypses, if you go by my lack of preparations.

 

[Liquid]

Gary Johnson, instead of Ross Perot, is punching his pork pie hat.

 

[Dotini]

Tin foil hat speaking here, but what would be the chance that the FBI wants to avoid Hillary taking the office at all costs?

I want to think the current leadership at the FBI are bureaucrats who are mostly concerned about protecting their sinecures, their agency, and the nation, in that order. They are supposed to be apolitical.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Gary Johnson, instead of Ross Perot, is punching his pork pie hat.

I don't recall them exchanging long protein strands. Perhaps they've finally found a better way to do it.