President Trump

[MKJ]

Ah yes, who to believe. A magazine that would have nothing to gain by lying, or a man who *actually has fake Time covers framed at his golf clubs*.

[losCHUNK]

Last years photoshoot was done when trump already knew he would be person of the year. nov 28


if you think trump would go out of his way and lie about such a thing and believe a known liar like time on the other hand... youre all gone into kracus level delusions

Man, you've actually made your own narrative now.

[shaft]

Ah yes, who to believe. A magazine that would have nothing to gain by lying, or a man who *actually has fake Time covers framed at his golf clubs*.

lmao forgot about that.

[shaft]

lol @ dubz tripping over himself trying to find a MSM conspiracy

how do you explain the very innacurate polls before the election? trump had 1% chance of winning right till the last day?

WAT


edit: not even worth arguing

[dubz]

you made how many posts on this topic? but now that you need to deliver an argument its not worth arguing?


i ask you all again, what is the reason for very obvious inaccurate reporting of the pre election scene other than deliberate deceiving?

[Eraser]

No, really, you're making crazy nutcase tinfoil hat conspiracy theory claims. Your previous posts have been nothing but stacks of stupidity, so any coherent response about this subject on shaft's end will most likely just be met by even bigger mountains of nonsense. No sense in arguing with the mentally inept.

[losCHUNK]

you made how many posts on this topic? but now that you need to deliver an argument its not worth arguing?


i ask you all again, what is the reason for very obvious inaccurate reporting of the pre election scene other than deliberate deceiving?

What reporting ?

That Trump is prone to baby tantrums on social media ? (nuff said)
That he was getting crushed in the polls ? (polls can be inaccurate)
That the DNC was hacked by Russia (something that even he said was likely)
That he's colluding with Russia ? (considering there's an FBI investigation ongoing it's not surprising)

You wanna take a look at Hillary for the the leaked emails, when the FBI announced there was (but not) going to be an investigation into it ?, she was the biggest loser in the battle with the media. It cost her the election for airing dirty laundry in public.

If you apply the same standards you should want his head on a stake too.

[dubz]

polls were way off, whats the reason for that? "polls can be inaccurate" cannot be a reason in such widespread and extreme misrepresentation. polls are very accurate and inaccurate if you want them to be.

so whats the reason for very inaccurate polls in all msm pre election?

[losCHUNK]

Well in this case its prolly because Hillary won the popular vote and there wasnt much data on the electoral college, they also tightened in the final week after the FBI announcement, so they werent entirely off.

Polling data can be wrong by a big margin, just like at the recent UK election. All it takes is a few swings in key areas and the model gets turned on it head.

[Transient]

It would have taken you less time to look it up yourself than to repeatedly ask people at Q3W. I got as far as "why were the 201" before Google autocompleted the search and I found this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/upsh ... trump.html

1) Undecided poll-takers favored Drumpf once it came time to cast their ballot
2) People who take the time to answer poll questions tend to be more educated, and Clinton supporters are more educated on average
3) A lot of Drumpf supporters were too embarrassed to answer truthfully on the polls and opted to say "undecided" even though they planned to vote for Drumpf

So that answers why the polls were off. As far as your claimed 1% chance for victory, that's entirely separate from the polling. No poll said 1% of voters were going to support Drumpf. That was the media interpretation of how the election was going to shake out.

[dubz]

1) Undecided poll-takers favored Drumpf once it came time to cast their ballot
2) People who take the time to answer poll questions tend to be more educated, and Clinton supporters are more educated on average
3) A lot of Drumpf supporters were too embarrassed to answer truthfully on the polls and opted to say "undecided" even though they planned to vote for Drumpf

.

you think noone thought of these problems before and are not usually taken into consideration?. They consciously used models that would put hillary on top, clinton camp themselves were instructing them to use models that would skew the reality. thats a fact you can read in their emails.


the polls you were seing were not honest surveys of public opinion, they were used to portray hillary as the definitive winner to quash enthusiasm of the opposing side.

i call that deliberate decieving... you all are saying its just a coincidence all the msm had incompetent surveyers whose mistakes coincidentally favored hillary? the same msm whose major stakeholders are all hillary donors?

[losCHUNK]

Thats not how polling works, you can only use the data you have to interprate the result. If you start messing with that then you may aswell get rid of the data. The polls showed what happened as i said, in that Hillarys lead vanished in the final week thanks in part to the FBI announcement, along with the wikileaks shit. The combined poll shows that, It was tight especially with the public opinion and only by a few hundred in some states, and thats what the polls showed. It also takes into account the history, so if a paticular candidate has been in the + for X amount of time then that boosts the public opinion poll.

Polls shouldnt be relied upon, i was saying this during the election, they have a tendency to be off especially in volatile results. The biggest surprise for me was Americans actually put a bigger idiot than Bush in the chair thinking they wouldnt do it. It also depends on the poll conductrd, so if CNN poll there customers then the result will be pro Hillary.

Btw, having clear favourite polls would normally work against the winning candidate.

[dubz]

such polls are usually very accurate. To get accurate statistics 1000 people are a big enough sample coupled by oversampling to adjust for anomalies that can happen in a small sample pool. Oversampling is used to get more accurate results and also can be used to " maximize what we get out of our media polling"(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-2 ... versamples)

dont you think that if they believed that their standard polling practice isnt too accurate that they would simply increase the sample pool to a number that would get them very accurate results? or whatever else is needed for accuracy... how hard would that be and wouldnt that have happend already?

[losCHUNK]

Like I said that's not how it works, when the polls closed in the final week key states (like Florida) came to close to call. By this point Hillary was on a knife edge before the election thanks to the electoral college. You can increase the sample size to whatever you want and you'll still have data that can change with very little movement.

The polling data showed

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5491.html

Hillary lead by 3%, guess how much she won the popular vote by ?, 2%.

Now look at the electoral college -

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html

See all the gray ?, that's where it was won or lost and like I said, polling data can lead to inaccurate results when a few key areas swing the other way. It's a likely outcome and not a certain one. If Hillary won the 3 states where she lost by the smallest margin you'd have a different president in the whitehouse.

Trump had the momentum in the final week, making massive gains on Hillary so it wasn't so surprising, as shown here -

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... anges.html

Which brings us to our next problem, the polling for the electoral college wasn't done as often so couldn't react to changes in the race quick enough. Those 3 states (I mentioned earlier) were Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Now Michigan and Pennsylvania polling had a sample done in the final week, it went from 'leans Clinton' to 'Toss up' and Wisconsins last sample (who is still showing 'Leans Clinton') was done almost a month before.

and if you want an example of how wrong polling can be then just take a look at the last 4 votes in the UK.

[lvlshot]https://i.imgur.com/3K7gLU9.gif[/lvlshot]

[dubz]

polls started to get accurate in the last days thats not a surprise. and its not the other way around that suddenly everyone switched to trump like you want to portray it. i mean every fucking msm site was asking this question after election; how could the polls be so wrong? but you still say they were accurate?

manipulating polls is not a conspiracy theory. clear bias in reporting including skewed polls for hillary was obvious. this two things cant be denied

[shaft]

Yeah, that's why Hilary won. You figured out the master plan. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Now lets get to the bottom of those 6 million illegal votes.

[losCHUNK]

polls started to get accurate in the last days thats not a surprise. and its not the other way around that suddenly everyone switched to trump like you want to portray it. i mean every fucking msm site was asking this question after election; how could the polls be so wrong? but you still say they were accurate?

manipulating polls is not a conspiracy theory. clear bias in reporting including skewed polls for hillary was obvious. this two things cant be denied

Why's it not a surprise ?

Is it cos Trump made gains in the final weeks thanks to wikileaks releases and FBI announcements ?, this damaged Hillarys campaign beyond repair and people turned away from her, with voter turnout being low (which could also point to complacent voters due to favorable Hillary polls). The data is there for you to see, it has Trump leading in July and if you look there's multiple companies conducting these polls and all the data coincides perfectly with those announcements.

I've been explaining to you how polls work and you're still failing to grasp it, it can only show a likely outcome and in the final weeks that outcome become marginal.

The data is accurate, people reported on it accurately and this is why polling data can be volatile. If you look at the graph on the page I linked you can see the swings, Trumps close in the race at certain points and not at others, fortunately for him he was close when it mattered.

[dubz]

Yeah, that's why Hilary won. You figured out the master plan. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Now lets get to the bottom of those 6 million illegal votes.

i thought you said its not worth arguing... you came back now that youre not on the spot anymore to present some arguments

[dubz]

honestly tho shaft, how much $ did you really contribute to the hillary campaign?

[losCHUNK]

All you keep saying is 'how can polls be so wrong' so I wouldn't criticise his arguing ability if I was you.

It happens, Gore in 2000, Brexit, British elections for 2015 and 2017.

[shaft]

i thought you said its not worth arguing... you came back now that youre not on the spot anymore to present some arguments

Yeah you got me, I just couldn't explain away that excellent conspiracy shit you threw at the wall and waited till it was safe to return. I definitely didn't have anything better to do all day.

[shaft]

honestly tho shaft, how much $ did you really contribute to the hillary campaign?

Are you the only one in Slovenia wearing a MAGA hat?

[dubz]

ok shaft answer me this...

is sending debate questions secretly to one candidate even a legal thing? if they all did it to advance one candidate is that a conspiracy?

are you gonna deny that hillary got the debate questions beforehand?

please in straight fashion you can y/n if you want.

[shaft]

Because if this happened that other is true, right? I'm here to answer all your questions. Lets do Seth Rich next.

[dubz]

answer the questions above