Donald Trump for President?

Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 . . . 216 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1824904 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 13:31:05 UTC - in response to Message 1824901.  

Again, my feeling is that neither Trump or Clinton will get the magic 270 number when the electoral college votes on December 19th.

Trump is right, the election is rigged. Any vote that isn't Trump, Clinton or Johnson will not count, so yes, one will get to 270.
ID: 1824904 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1824945 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 15:50:31 UTC - in response to Message 1824910.  

Again, my feeling is that neither Trump or Clinton will get the magic 270 number when the electoral college votes on December 19th.

Trump is right, the election is rigged. Any vote that isn't Trump, Clinton or Johnson will not count, so yes, one will get to 270.

Wrong foundation of your argument. Not getting the necessary 270 Electoral Votes. Doesn't mean anything is 'Rigged'.

Just a Popular Third Party Candidate's possibility of winning some States. Thereby stopping any Candidate from obtaining the necessary '270'.

If that happens. Only the Top Three Electoral Vote Receiving Candidates can be considered, by the House of Representative's, for President.

Nothing 'Rigged'.

Totally rigged. That write in line is useless and is there only to get people to throw away their vote. That is the rigging! (in many states anyway)
ID: 1824945 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1824947 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 15:57:20 UTC - in response to Message 1824901.  

I notice that this backyard sample DOES NOT look anything like all of the media sponsored polls I see quoted here. What gives? These people I was with are all from a variety of backgrounds with various education levels and a wide age variance.


Polling shouldn't be done from a single locale. Even if you believe you have diversity, there will still be local societal influences that can sway opinions from allegedly diverse backgrounds. Polling should be done in multiple locales, preferably in multiple states, and the questions should be given such that they don't influence the answer.


I was not polling. I did not word any questions.
I simply listened to a number of different discussions that people were having with each other at a get together. It was most certainly a diverse group of 26 voting adults (plus kids)from 4 different states, from 19 to 84 years old and a variety of backgrounds.

I would never consider it statistically accurate and was NOT a poll.
I simply could not get over how the cumulation of all day long discussions within this group resulted in roughly the same voter preference as I had seen in one person conversations I have had with individuals.
The results from the backyard birthday conversations DID NOT reflect the polls I see quoted here on this forum. I find that suspect.

I do not suspect my notations made about conversations I listened to.
I DO suspect polls done by the various media that are known for their misleading questions and biased wording.

Again, my feeling is that neither Trump or Clinton will get the magic 270 number when the electoral college votes on December 19th.


Call it what you want, I still don't think your "notations" are statistically relevant. Extrapolating from that pool of data doesn't seem wise to me, or at least, very unscientific. You're not accounting for (and I'm sure you'll immediately dismiss) people saying what they think those around them want to hear (even if they sound convincing when they say it, this is also known as confirmation bias), or people not being entirely honest with how they will vote come time to put pen to paper in voting booths. Sure, you have no reason to doubt their face-value statements, but that doesn't mean you should derive a conclusion from those same face-value statements.
ID: 1824947 · Report as offensive
Profile JumpinJohnny
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 13
Posts: 678
Credit: 962,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1824974 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 18:25:31 UTC - in response to Message 1824947.  

I notice that this backyard sample DOES NOT look anything like all of the media sponsored polls I see quoted here. What gives? These people I was with are all from a variety of backgrounds with various education levels and a wide age variance.


Polling shouldn't be done from a single locale. Even if you believe you have diversity, there will still be local societal influences that can sway opinions from allegedly diverse backgrounds. Polling should be done in multiple locales, preferably in multiple states, and the questions should be given such that they don't influence the answer.


I was not polling. I did not word any questions.
I simply listened to a number of different discussions that people were having with each other at a get together. It was most certainly a diverse group of 26 voting adults (plus kids)from 4 different states, from 19 to 84 years old and a variety of backgrounds.

I would never consider it statistically accurate and was NOT a poll.
I simply could not get over how the cumulation of all day long discussions within this group resulted in roughly the same voter preference as I had seen in one person conversations I have had with individuals.
The results from the backyard birthday conversations DID NOT reflect the polls I see quoted here on this forum. I find that suspect.

I do not suspect my notations made about conversations I listened to.
I DO suspect polls done by the various media that are known for their misleading questions and biased wording.

Again, my feeling is that neither Trump or Clinton will get the magic 270 number when the electoral college votes on December 19th.


Call it what you want, I still don't think your "notations" are statistically relevant. Extrapolating from that pool of data doesn't seem wise to me, or at least, very unscientific. You're not accounting for (and I'm sure you'll immediately dismiss) people saying what they think those around them want to hear (even if they sound convincing when they say it, this is also known as confirmation bias), or people not being entirely honest with how they will vote come time to put pen to paper in voting booths. Sure, you have no reason to doubt their face-value statements, but that doesn't mean you should derive a conclusion from those same face-value statements.


jeeze Ozz

I'm not sure how else to express and relay this so you will understand.
I did not take a survey, pose questions or otherwise attemp to gain "scientific" information.
I thought it would be interesting to relate what I had witnessed.
There is absolutely no way of telling if people are saying what they think others want to hear or if what they say is how they would actually vote.
If you think that the media polls get true unfiltered answers from the people they poll, then you are delusional.
Further my "conclusions" are MY OWN feelings and opinions AS I STATED ,, twice.

I'm sorry the information doesn't interest you. However, I do think it is noteworthy, otherwise I would not have posted it for others to consider.
I'm uncertain why you expect me to disregard my own experience.
ID: 1824974 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1824983 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 19:02:00 UTC - in response to Message 1824283.  

Taxes
Today’s federal tax code does all the wrong things. It penalizes productivity, savings and investment, while rewarding inefficiency and designating winners and losers according to political whim

Johnny we can easily end poverty by heavily taxing the poor, that will increase their incentive to become middle class. The beatings should continue until morale improves.
ID: 1824983 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1824986 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 19:16:45 UTC - in response to Message 1824974.  
Last modified: 17 Oct 2016, 19:19:35 UTC

What I think your views are on the voting preferences of your family and friends show, is that this is an unusual election.

Normally family members stay with the party of the elders. At least until some of the younger ones leave home, become friendly with people of different backgrounds, and in some cases become better educated. [edit] You could say the same applies to religious beliefs. [/edit]

Friends usually come from the same area, with similar interests and with similar financial levels, so you would expect them to have similar views on things political.

Therefore in a normal year you could expect the majority in a group like that to support the same political party. But this year they are divided, if your observations are correct.
ID: 1824986 · Report as offensive
Profile JumpinJohnny
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 13
Posts: 678
Credit: 962,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1824988 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 19:22:02 UTC - in response to Message 1824983.  

Taxes
Today’s federal tax code does all the wrong things. It penalizes productivity, savings and investment, while rewarding inefficiency and designating winners and losers according to political whim

Johnny we can easily end poverty by heavily taxing the poor, that will increase their incentive to become middle class. The beatings should continue until morale improves.


That's just crazy talk. A fair tax code that required corporations, businesses, investors, wage earners, and everyone except the poorest to ALL pay would lessen the tax burden for everyone.

If you also limit government military spending to actual needs for Defence of the US, and cut the bloated buracracy that bleeds us dry, then even less taxes would be necessary.

Ahhh , but maybe I'm dreaming. Nobody in power would ever fall for that.
ID: 1824988 · Report as offensive
Profile JumpinJohnny
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 13
Posts: 678
Credit: 962,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1824989 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 19:25:25 UTC - in response to Message 1824986.  

Exactly, WinterKnight.

It's very wierd to hear the general populace even mention the words "third party" let alone be talking about voting that way. A most unusual year indeed.
ID: 1824989 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1825006 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 20:52:30 UTC

ATTN: TRUMP SUPPORTERS!
Russia hacked you and your bank account!
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/10/hackers-hit-u-s-senate-gop-committee/
The national news media has been consumed of late with reports of Russian hackers breaking into networks of the Democratic National Committee. Lest the Republicans feel left out of all the excitement, a report this past week out of The Netherlands suggests Russian hackers have for the past six months been siphoning credit card data from visitors to the Web storefront of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

nrscThat’s right: If you purchased a “Never Hillary” poster or donated funds to the NRSC through its Web site between March 2016 and the first week of this month, there’s an excellent chance that your payment card data was siphoned by malware and is now for sale in the cybercrime underground.


wonder if they will ever admit it was russia that went after clinton?
ID: 1825006 · Report as offensive
Profile JaundicedEye
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 5375
Credit: 30,870,693
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1825010 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 21:03:09 UTC

ATTN: TRUMP SUPPORTERS!
Russia hacked you and your bank account!
So according to the Media, the Russians are:

1) Responsible for the wikileak emails(which now are supposed to be fake). And are supporting Trump.

2) Responsible for hacking the Bank Accounts of Trump Supporters.

Sounds a little too neatly packaged for me. I think the 'Shadow Electorate' probably see right through that desperation.

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>
ID: 1825010 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1825025 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 21:45:09 UTC - in response to Message 1824974.  

I notice that this backyard sample DOES NOT look anything like all of the media sponsored polls I see quoted here. What gives? These people I was with are all from a variety of backgrounds with various education levels and a wide age variance.


Polling shouldn't be done from a single locale. Even if you believe you have diversity, there will still be local societal influences that can sway opinions from allegedly diverse backgrounds. Polling should be done in multiple locales, preferably in multiple states, and the questions should be given such that they don't influence the answer.


I was not polling. I did not word any questions.
I simply listened to a number of different discussions that people were having with each other at a get together. It was most certainly a diverse group of 26 voting adults (plus kids)from 4 different states, from 19 to 84 years old and a variety of backgrounds.

I would never consider it statistically accurate and was NOT a poll.
I simply could not get over how the cumulation of all day long discussions within this group resulted in roughly the same voter preference as I had seen in one person conversations I have had with individuals.
The results from the backyard birthday conversations DID NOT reflect the polls I see quoted here on this forum. I find that suspect.

I do not suspect my notations made about conversations I listened to.
I DO suspect polls done by the various media that are known for their misleading questions and biased wording.

Again, my feeling is that neither Trump or Clinton will get the magic 270 number when the electoral college votes on December 19th.


Call it what you want, I still don't think your "notations" are statistically relevant. Extrapolating from that pool of data doesn't seem wise to me, or at least, very unscientific. You're not accounting for (and I'm sure you'll immediately dismiss) people saying what they think those around them want to hear (even if they sound convincing when they say it, this is also known as confirmation bias), or people not being entirely honest with how they will vote come time to put pen to paper in voting booths. Sure, you have no reason to doubt their face-value statements, but that doesn't mean you should derive a conclusion from those same face-value statements.


jeeze Ozz

I'm not sure how else to express and relay this so you will understand.


I'm not sure why you think I don't understand. Is it because I don't arrive at the same conclusion you do, therefore I must not "get it"?

I did not take a survey, pose questions or otherwise attemp to gain "scientific" information.
I thought it would be interesting to relate what I had witnessed.


I fully understand what you're saying here. I fully understand you simply kept your ears open and listened.

There is absolutely no way of telling if people are saying what they think others want to hear or if what they say is how they would actually vote.


You're right. And this is part of my point. Because there is no way of knowing, I think it is a bad idea to draw conclusions from this listening experiment, however interesting you may find the information.

If you think that the media polls get true unfiltered answers from the people they poll, then you are delusional.


Why do you automatically assume that if I disagree with your conclusion, that I must automatically agree with the media's polls? Further, why ruin the conversation by throwing out insults such as stating I'm delusional? How can there be civil discourse if you disrespect others who are trying to interact with you?

Even if I did put more trust in the media's polls, it would simply be because they would probably be from a larger sample size than your experiment. Note that I did not say I do believe or trust the media's polls. Just offering another plausible possibility.

But just to keep the insults going in the spirit of the Politics Forum, you must be f---ed in the head to actually believe that your anecdotal experience must be the totality of truth and clear evidence that the media's polls are rigged and/or biased.

Further my "conclusions" are MY OWN feelings and opinions AS I STATED ,, twice.


Yep. Got that. I love it when people think they have to re-state their position as if it validates their opinions even more to repeat them.

I'm sorry the information doesn't interest you. However, I do think it is noteworthy, otherwise I would not have posted it for others to consider.
I'm uncertain why you expect me to disregard my own experience.


The information is only as interesting as it is relevant. That is to say, it is anecdotal and nothing more. Of course you think it's noteworthy, and of course you posted it to share with others. I'm part of others, aren't I? I'm responding to your post and providing feedback from my perspective. Isn't that what communication is all about? Or would you rather continue to get defensive and insult me because you think I can't possibly grasp or understand what you're saying? Nevermind. This is Politics. I think I know my answer.
ID: 1825025 · Report as offensive
Profile JumpinJohnny
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 13
Posts: 678
Credit: 962,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825054 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 23:27:44 UTC - in response to Message 1825025.  
Last modified: 17 Oct 2016, 23:29:37 UTC

No, not correct. I was responding to your dismissal of what I had said.
I had to assume from your first response that you did not understand where I was comming from.
Sorry you think I called you delusional.
I shoud have said that, "Anybody" not, "you" and stressed the word "If".

When you say,
you must be f---ed in the head to actually believe that your anecdotal experience must be the totality of truth and clear evidence that the media's polls are rigged and/or biased.

...seems a bit rash and I think that anybody reading this thread would agree that I said nothing of the sort.
I merely pointed out a disparity in what I had witnessed at a back yard get-together and what is reported via large sample scientifically designed polls.
Since you say,
Or would you rather continue to get defensive and insult me because you think I can't possibly grasp or understand what you're saying? Nevermind. This is Politics. I think I know my answer.

I guess you have already made up your mind about me and my opinions. Too bad.
ID: 1825054 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1825057 - Posted: 17 Oct 2016, 23:44:28 UTC - in response to Message 1825054.  

No, not correct. I was responding to your dismissal of what I had said.
I had to assume from your first response that you did not understand where I was comming from.


Why would you assume I did not understand simply because I dismissed it? Is there no alternative conclusion?

Sorry you think I called you delusional.
I shoud have said that, "Anybody" not, "you" and stressed the word "If".


I caught the "if". It's not needed in civil discourse. The assertion is that if I happen to agree with the media, I must therefore be delusional. I think that is insulting to anyone, whether it was me or "anybody". Do you think insulting your readers is the best way to get them to agree with you? Again, I understand this wasn't directly at me, but the plural form of "you".

When you say,
you must be f---ed in the head to actually believe that your anecdotal experience must be the totality of truth and clear evidence that the media's polls are rigged and/or biased.

...seems a bit rash and I think that anybody reading this thread would agree that I said nothing of the sort.


Of course it was rash. I was using another example of an extreme and insulting statement to get my point across about calling people that disagree with you delusional based upon observational anecdotes.

I merely pointed out a disparity in what I had witnessed at a back yard get-together and what is reported via large sample scientifically designed polls.


Again, I understand what you were pointing out. My opinion is that a backyard get-together is insufficient to draw any conclusions from.

Since you say,
Or would you rather continue to get defensive and insult me because you think I can't possibly grasp or understand what you're saying? Nevermind. This is Politics. I think I know my answer.

I guess you have already made up your mind about me and my opinions. Too bad.


When you resort to using "if... then" statements to subtly work in insults to your readers; any reader, me or the one that never posts, simply because they choose to speak up and interact with you, or heaven forbid disagree with your assertion because they feel it is based upon inadequate results, then yes, I have my mind made up about those types of people. Politics is bad enough trying to discuss new ideas or different ways of looking at the same problem without having to imply that another's reality must be messed up if they don't see things as you do. It has no place in civil discourse.
ID: 1825057 · Report as offensive
Profile JumpinJohnny
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 13
Posts: 678
Credit: 962,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825064 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 0:22:35 UTC - in response to Message 1825057.  

OK Ozzy,

You are so right.
I can see that you are quite intent on picking apart whatever it is I wish to tell you, without your reciprocal consideration of actual "civil discourse" you purport to defend.
So there is no point in continuing.
You win by default, even though I wasn't looking for an argument or a personal debate. I hope this makes you feel better. Yes, a "civil discourse" would have been preferable.
ID: 1825064 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1825072 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 0:43:31 UTC - in response to Message 1825064.  
Last modified: 18 Oct 2016, 1:03:37 UTC

OK Ozzy,

You are so right.
I can see that you are quite intent on picking apart whatever it is I wish to tell you, without your reciprocal consideration of actual "civil discourse" you purport to defend.
So there is no point in continuing.
You win by default, even though I wasn't looking for an argument or a personal debate. I hope this makes you feel better. Yes, a "civil discourse" would have been preferable.


Yay me! I'm right! That's what I wanted all along - just to hear I'm right! [/s]

It all started with you. Your responses dictated the course of the discussion. Had you not used a subtle insult, this conversation would have gone far differently. I was not the one to suggest someone is delusional for disagreeing with me. I even provided my reasoning for why I disagreed with your conclusion. You lose the ability to suggest you were trying to reciprocate civility when you resorted to insults first. Sorry that you couldn't see that.

Indeed... "civil discourse". A lesson for you in the future, should you choose to accept it?
ID: 1825072 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1825073 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 0:50:28 UTC - in response to Message 1825066.  

When you say,

you must be f---ed in the head to actually believe that your anecdotal experience must be the totality of truth and clear evidence that the media's polls are rigged and/or biased.

Jumpin...

You will notice the use of curses to personally attack, is the 'Last refuge of...'

It is a Poster admitting they have lost the intellectual argument. Perhaps they never really had an intellectual argument to begin with.


I notice that you immediately take sides and go against me, rather than take on your usual "middle ground" approach in politics. I read this as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Not the first time I've seen you do that either. In previous times you openly do this to gain the support of others by capitalizing on a disagreement.

So sad that you change your mind so easily. Sometimes you tell me you find me interesting. Then again other times you tell me I'm boring. And I also note I'm not the first one you've done this to either. Now this time you say I don't have an intellectual argument because I used a curse word to get a point across. Hrmph. So glad you could stop by and add fuel to the fire.
ID: 1825073 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825076 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 0:54:31 UTC

Let's try to stay away from semantic passive-aggressive arguments and stick to the topic in a way that makes points without antagonizing each other.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1825076 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1825079 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 1:00:12 UTC - in response to Message 1825076.  

Let's try to stay away from semantic passive-aggressive arguments and stick to the topic in a way that makes points without antagonizing each other.

It is the Trump thread so everything must be interpreted nasty 10^100 more than was intended.
ID: 1825079 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825084 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 1:15:42 UTC

Taking personal offense in the way in which other people express their viewpoints is unfortunately going to happen here because it's a hot topic. I simply want us all to relax, and direct whatever is on our minds to talking about the idea in the post as related to the topic, not the poster.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1825084 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1825090 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 1:41:48 UTC - in response to Message 1824657.  

But is ~20% of the population enough to win even with a low turnout?

Unfortunately the USA does not require a majority of registered voters to win. If it did a contest such as we have this time would be self destructive.

The #nevertrump seem just as energized as the #voteforpervert crowd. They cancel each other.

If the turnout is extremely low then all the down-race contests become unpredictable. We could end up with a super-majority for either party. Likely the opposite of the presidential winner.

That is what is difficult for a people living under a Parliamentary System of Government to understand.

Voters 'Split' their votes regarding President, Senate, House of Representatives, State Governor's and State Legislator's.

Most of the State Governors and Legislative's, US Senate and House, are Republican. At the same time they voted for a Democrat President.


I expected a bit more nuanced response.
Some do split.
Then, not long after they get into or back to office, Congress has, what, a 9% approval rating?
Then, the much smaller percentage that votes in the "off" years swings one or both houses to the other side.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1825090 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 . . . 216 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.