Quake3World.com Forums
     General Discussion
        President Trump
Post new topicReply to topic
Login | Profile | | FAQ | Search | IRC




Previous topic | Next topic 
Topic Starter Topic: Re: President Trump
Eraser
Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 43470
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 12:53 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 01:24 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


dubz wrote:
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.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 01:50 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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?
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 01:57 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
Transient
Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 35062
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 02:13 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.



_________________
YourGrandpa wrote:
I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 03:27 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Transient wrote:

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?
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 04:52 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 05:52 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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?
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 08:12 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 09:13 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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
Top
                 
shaft
Aneurysm
Aneurysm
Joined: 10 Dec 1999
Posts: 12249
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 09:27 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 09:37 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


dubz wrote:
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.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Last edited by losCHUNK on 11-26-2017 09:51 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 09:49 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


shaft wrote:
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
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 09:51 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


honestly tho shaft, how much $ did you really contribute to the hillary campaign?
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 09:55 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
shaft
Aneurysm
Aneurysm
Joined: 10 Dec 1999
Posts: 12249
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 10:14 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


dubz wrote:
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.
Top
                 
shaft
Aneurysm
Aneurysm
Joined: 10 Dec 1999
Posts: 12249
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 10:16 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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


Are you the only one in Slovenia wearing a MAGA hat?
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 10:39 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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.
Top
                 
shaft
Aneurysm
Aneurysm
Joined: 10 Dec 1999
Posts: 12249
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 11:00 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Because if this happened that other is true, right? I'm here to answer all your questions. Lets do Seth Rich next.
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-26-2017 11:27 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


answer the questions above
Top
                 
SOAPboy
Soccer Practice!
Soccer Practice!
Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 15667
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 12:09 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


dubz wrote:
answer the questions above



You lost your argument about polls and now shift to something else. :olo:

Whats up trump jr fox news? :olo:
Top
                 
MKJ
Messatsu Ko Jy-ouu
Messatsu Ko Jy-ouu
Joined: 24 Nov 2000
Posts: 43986
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 12:24 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


when all else fails, resort to whataboutism
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 01:00 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


did any of you have any arguments at all? no.. except for red font guy trying in his ordinary way of reading headlines and make the rest up way..

why the polls were so off remains unanswered, chunk only pointed out the last week.... i dont see any headlines calling for a complete revision of polling practices now that the trump polls were so inaccurate.... polls are still working, statisticians know it, politician know it, reporters play dumb..

while you ponder on that i gave you another example of msm conspiracy which i tought would be easier to understand as its just real straight forward facts.


will anyone answer the last 3? all these condescending attitudes and only chunk with the balls to share his view..
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 01:01 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


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?
Top
                 
Transient
Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 35062
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 01:33 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Yes, yes, and no.

That was easy.



_________________
YourGrandpa wrote:
I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.
Top
                 
Eraser
Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 43470
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 01:44 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


What amazes me here is that conspiracy theorists usually take some sort of fact and then come up with a crazy ass theory about how said fact came to fruition.
dubz isn't even arguing about a fact here. He's arguing that there was a conspiracy for something that didn't even end up happening.
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 01:53 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


hillary still lost, despite the conspiracy

transient seems to agree there was a conspiracy...


can you anwser the same 3 quesitons eraser?

lets see what results you get...
Top
                 
Transient
Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 35062
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 02:11 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Just remember, conspiring doesn't necessarily mean breaking the law. The DNC is a private organization and they're allowed to make (and break) any rules they want. :miffed:



_________________
YourGrandpa wrote:
I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.
Top
                 
shaft
Aneurysm
Aneurysm
Joined: 10 Dec 1999
Posts: 12249
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 06:32 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Transient wrote:
Yes, yes, and no.

That was easy.


Futher proof we never went to the moon. :!:
Top
                 
shaft
Aneurysm
Aneurysm
Joined: 10 Dec 1999
Posts: 12249
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 06:37 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


MKJ wrote:
when all else fails, resort to whataboutism


Slowly making their way from Trumps lies about TIME to “but her emails”.
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 07:01 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


dubz wrote:
did any of you have any arguments at all? no.. except for red font guy trying in his ordinary way of reading headlines and make the rest up way..

why the polls were so off remains unanswered, chunk only pointed out the last week.... i dont see any headlines calling for a complete revision of polling practices now that the trump polls were so inaccurate.... polls are still working, statisticians know it, politician know it, reporters play dumb..

while you ponder on that i gave you another example of msm conspiracy which i tought would be easier to understand as its just real straight forward facts.


will anyone answer the last 3? all these condescending attitudes and only chunk with the balls to share his view..


:smirk:

I told you why the polls tightened in the final week and how they were inaccurate in their prediction, told you why polls will never be perfect, gave you 4 examples of how they've been wrong in the past. There were no headlines involved in this and gave you the data to show it and held your hand as I walked you through it. They don't need to change their method as like I said, it will never be perfect, increasing the sample size won't help and the logistics of collecting data for all states and presenting information takes time so will still be slow to react to situations if collected more frequently. All you could retort to was 'but polls are always accurate / the statisticians can't be wrong' with some added tag lines without actually addressing anything I told you.

You seem to now agree that the polls were accurate in the final week, they were accurate throughout, the inaccurate thing with polls is their interpretation which is prone to swings and incomplete data, that was was wrong in the final week and I've said why.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 03:49 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


how come hillarys camp had the right poll numbers internally? they point this out in their conversations that the media polls are all off in hillarys favor... i already linked you to these emails when it first came out. thats another fact you cant dispute but you keep on theorizing...
Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 04:00 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


shaft wrote:
MKJ wrote:
when all else fails, resort to whataboutism


Slowly making their way from Trumps lies about TIME to “but her emails”.


you gave the sarcastic remark about a conspiracy, thats why we are expanding the topic.

are you afraid or unable to defend your vies? or why do you dodge? obviously you want to play...

so please answer the 3 questions, its pretty simple

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?
Top
                 
losCHUNK
Truffle Shuffle
Truffle Shuffle
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 17167
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 08:14 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


dubz wrote:
how come hillarys camp had the right poll numbers internally? they point this out in their conversations that the media polls are all off in hillarys favor... i already linked you to these emails when it first came out. thats another fact you cant dispute but you keep on theorizing...



It's not theorising it's how polls work. You won't even address it.

The Podesta email is just requesting polls and they were provided, they probably paid them for the service as they are a company, paid extra for how to interprate them, Trump could've done the same. Also they can apply whatever formula they want it doesn't mean the media will use it, it's just something they can use to target groups and shout how things aren't so bad. It means absolutely bugger all and Trump done the same.

But more importantly you say the email says how the polls are in Hillarys favour ?, in this link ? (it was the only one) -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-2 ... versamples .

This Email, the only one on the page, saying how much Hillary is leading by ? (it doesn't)



Look at the date you dopey cunt.



_________________
. : You knows you knows

Top
                 
dubz
Insane Quaker
Insane Quaker
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 496
PostPosted: 11-27-2017 08:22 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


wrong email
Top
                 
Quake3World.com | Forum Index | General Discussion


Post new topic Reply to topic


cron
Quake3World.com
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group