Anyone here that still thinks Trump should be President of the States?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by dahldrin, Jul 31, 2016.

  1. And before you respond I'll tell you why:
    You fall for the bullcrap that both sides fling your way.
  2. #178 ETB4U, Aug 16, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
    You seriously get butt hurt defensive about everything, SJC.
    It's funny she almost choked on her words because the image doesn't fit her narrative.
    Yeah, they didn't poll all of them so I'll take it with a grain of salt. In fact, it jsut says Fox News poll. That means it was probably some poll they had on their website. Also, what about Black Americans? Not all blacks come from Africa, you racist. Also, you're okay with silencing the 1%? Typical neo-liberal cuck attitude, "it doesn't fit my narrative, so I'm going to ignore it."
  3. Edit. Nevermind. I'm not going to rejoin this crapshoot
  4. [​IMG]
    Tree Fitty and DIGGS like this.
  5. The only thing that truly grinds my gears about current politics is a movement silencing critical thinking.
    MooSquad and DIGGS like this.
  6. I wasn't butthurt at all, man who mindlessly parrots buzz phrases like "SJW" like a trained monkey. I didn't even watch it the whole thing.

    I merely made fun of how you neocons like to focus on outliers and anomalies to show how inclusive your messaging is.

    lol! Yeah! I'm going to take those pesky sets of scientific survey data with a grain of salt! What the hell do those pesky mathematicians and statisticians know anyway?

    My god you're ignorant.
  7. Neocon? I'm a pro-abortion atheist. Not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. We need more of them. It's not mindless when you fit the description of a cuckold. The fact you get your panties in a twist because a black man likes Trump is cute and proves my point. Foam on, bro.
    It's funny how you neo-libs like to ignore outliers and anomalies when it doesn't fit your narrative. Not very progressive of you to ignore the minority.
    There is nothing scientific about random people voting on some poll posted on Fox's website.
    Oh shit, only 1% to win the nomination?!?! So fucking scientific! There is no way it could be wrong!!!!!!!!
  8. Another example of CNN trying to force the situation to fit their narrative (I apologize for the guy's annoying as **** voice):
  9. lol!

    That was NOT a scientific survey. That was some matrix someone came up with that (only in part) uses some polling data.

    I just love how you displayed your inability to grasp simple concepts and then capped it off with the metaphoric mike drop. Bravo.
  10. Actually I grasp it well. You're literally ignoring facts. You're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear while chanting "la la la can't hear you."
    Yes, nothing scientific about programming equations based off collected data. Data like polls.:eyerolls:
  11. You posted something that is not a scientific survey, in an attempt to disapprove scientific surveys.

    While scientific survey techniques can vary and some are better than others, and some polling agencies are more reputable than others, properly applied survey techniques can most definitely give you a pretty accurate picture with in a small margin of error.

    And while I acknowledge they are not an exact science, your portrayal of them as useless hokus pokus is laughable. But hey, maybe you're smarter than all those know-it-all statisticians, and political campaigns just have no idea how well their candidate is doing in any state or district, or how well they're doing among any demographic.
  12. It's laughable you think a poll posted on Fox's website where random people click on a choice is scientific. Are you 12? I bet you believe the ads that say, "You won't believe what Ke$ha did that has the internet going nuts!"
    Also, I never said it was a scientific survey, so stop making stuff up to complain about, little lady. It is however scientific. And it was wrong. Being "scientific", doesn't mean it's correct. And polls posted on a website atent very scientific. This sites has plenty of them, idiot.
  13. Do I need a white robe to conduct a scientific poll
    Tree Fitty likes this.
  14. And a bushy moustache
  15. Yes

    Now you have an N=1
  16. lol! Oops I'm sorry did I just catch you in a lie? I mean I've always known you were a person of low moral character with zero integrity, but thank you for letting everyone else see it too.
    Methodology Notes:

    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 900 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp.
    But hey, that's just one poll. Here's another.
    The Republican presidential nominee ranks fourth among the African American community, attracting a miniscule two percent, FiveThirtyEight first reported.

    I'll tell you what. By all means go ahead and post a poll that doesn't show Donald trumps numbers among black voters to be dismal. I'll wait.
  17. And you're still too stupid to understand what I was saying. Not shocked.
  18. so whats your bottom line on polls
    are polls completely useless because sometimes they are wrong even if done soundly?
  19. I don't think that narrative is going to work for you. I assume this forum has a high literacy rate.
  20. I'm saying they can be useless depending on the context you're using them. Trying to use it in response to a video about a black person liking Trump is pretty useless. So what if 1% polled liked him? It could also be 2 or 5%. It still means blacks like him.
  21. You posted a link about a poll in response to a video of a CNN reporter being shocked to see a black Trump supporter. That's a fucking retarded response which we did see.
  22. I cant think of a more meaningless conclusion to draw from that
    unless you think its significant if at least 1 black person supports trump
    Murika likes this.

Share This Page