|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 10 2016 12:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:43 travis wrote:On October 10 2016 12:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
The CNN focus group only had 1 person raise their hand for Trump. the fox one had 2 or 3. 13 for trump I don't put any stock in any of these polls I think it's just better to wait and see Yougov and CNN flash polls are actually pretty well-respected and have been fairly predictive.
well out of curiosity i looked at some random polls online
and most of them were very heavily skewed for trump
so w/e like I said, I shall not put stock in polls.
I mean... look at the poll above us
and this site is pretty intellectual, which is probably in general more skewed for hillary than trump compared to the average american
|
On October 10 2016 12:44 Plansix wrote:
Its the crowd reaction GIF of Bernie saying we need to remove the federal prohibition in marijuana over again.
|
United States7226 Posts
Let's be real, with all the cheering going on from the audience, are you even the slightest bit skeptical about them being 'undecided voters'?
|
On October 10 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:29 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:28 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:17 Danglars wrote:
Only Hillary could've whiffed the lay-up that could've put away his shots at the presidency.
And I don't think it's the kind of debate performance more preparation can fix.
In the Tie/minor +Trump of the debate, the moderation was 0.o
I keep on lowering my expectations and they keep on beating them. At some point, it might be time to realize that it isn't the moderator's fault that these debates are a disaster. Maybe it's the disaster that they have to try to moderate. I also found it amusing that, of course, Trump + his supporters started whining about how unfair everything was the moment the debate started. They're responsible for their own performance not the results. We could just have a robot voice read the questions and no one hold the candidates accountable for what they say? And then everyone would whine about the quality of the questions and who got to go first. The American people are the only ones to hold candidates accountable for what they say. I don't care who whines about robots, that's a silly aside. American journalism can do better than the awful job shown today. As I have said before, the side who's candidate preforms like shit often blame the moderator.
Trump performed fine, and the moderators sucked ass. Sincerely and objectively ^.^
|
On October 10 2016 12:46 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:43 travis wrote:On October 10 2016 12:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
The CNN focus group only had 1 person raise their hand for Trump. the fox one had 2 or 3. 13 for trump I don't put any stock in any of these polls I think it's just better to wait and see Yougov and CNN flash polls are actually pretty well-respected and have been fairly predictive. well out of curiosity i looked at some random polls online and most of them were very heavily skewed for trump so w/e like I said, I shall not put stock in polls. I mean... look at the poll above us and this site is pretty intellectual, which is probably in general more skewed for hillary than trump compared to the average american
You're confusing polls with clickers. Yougov and CNN flash polls aren't clickers.
|
On October 10 2016 12:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Let's be real, with all the cheering going on from the audience, are you even the slightest bit skeptical about them being 'undecided voters'?
They are picked by Pew Research. But this is the internet and we can be skeptical about everything, not matter how well documented.
|
On October 10 2016 12:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:29 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:28 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:17 Danglars wrote:Only Hillary could've whiffed the lay-up that could've put away his shots at the presidency. And I don't think it's the kind of debate performance more preparation can fix. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/785309904458227716In the Tie/minor +Trump of the debate, the moderation was 0.o I keep on lowering my expectations and they keep on beating them. At some point, it might be time to realize that it isn't the moderator's fault that these debates are a disaster. Maybe it's the disaster that they have to try to moderate. I also found it amusing that, of course, Trump + his supporters started whining about how unfair everything was the moment the debate started. They're responsible for their own performance not the results. We could just have a robot voice read the questions and no one hold the candidates accountable for what they say? And then everyone would whine about the quality of the questions and who got to go first. The American people are the only ones to hold candidates accountable for what they say. I don't care who whines about robots, that's a silly aside. American journalism can do better than the awful job shown today. As I have said before, the side who's candidate preforms like shit often blame the moderator. Trump performed fine, and the moderators sucked ass. Sincerely and objectively ^.^
You know your personal opinion on something can never be objective, right? Like ever.
|
On October 10 2016 12:46 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:43 travis wrote:On October 10 2016 12:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
The CNN focus group only had 1 person raise their hand for Trump. the fox one had 2 or 3. 13 for trump I don't put any stock in any of these polls I think it's just better to wait and see Yougov and CNN flash polls are actually pretty well-respected and have been fairly predictive. well out of curiosity i looked at some random polls online and most of them were very heavily skewed for trump so w/e like I said, I shall not put stock in polls. I mean... look at the poll above us and this site is pretty intellectual, which is probably in general more skewed for hillary than trump compared to the average american
There's a difference between click-polls online (like ours at the top or any of them on websites like Drudge and Breitbart) and actual scientifically valid polls like CNN's and Yougov's.
Even the last debate which was a resounding win by Clinton showed Trump winning in those B.S. click polls by as much as 85-15. Trump fans just slam those polls with bots to try to skew the results.
|
On October 10 2016 12:46 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:43 travis wrote:On October 10 2016 12:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
The CNN focus group only had 1 person raise their hand for Trump. the fox one had 2 or 3. 13 for trump I don't put any stock in any of these polls I think it's just better to wait and see Yougov and CNN flash polls are actually pretty well-respected and have been fairly predictive. well out of curiosity i looked at some random polls online and most of them were very heavily skewed for trump so w/e like I said, I shall not put stock in polls. I mean... look at the poll above us and this site is pretty intellectual, which is probably in general more skewed for hillary than trump compared to the average american
There's a reason for that and the top post here is that reason www.reddit.com Same shit as the first debate where all the /r/The_Donald idiots brigade online votes that you can vote 10 million times in that mean literally nothing. Then just like last debate idiots say "Durr look Trump won!" When he actually got slaughtered by every single scientific metric.
|
On October 10 2016 12:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:29 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:28 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:17 Danglars wrote:Only Hillary could've whiffed the lay-up that could've put away his shots at the presidency. And I don't think it's the kind of debate performance more preparation can fix. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/785309904458227716In the Tie/minor +Trump of the debate, the moderation was 0.o I keep on lowering my expectations and they keep on beating them. At some point, it might be time to realize that it isn't the moderator's fault that these debates are a disaster. Maybe it's the disaster that they have to try to moderate. I also found it amusing that, of course, Trump + his supporters started whining about how unfair everything was the moment the debate started. They're responsible for their own performance not the results. We could just have a robot voice read the questions and no one hold the candidates accountable for what they say? And then everyone would whine about the quality of the questions and who got to go first. The American people are the only ones to hold candidates accountable for what they say. I don't care who whines about robots, that's a silly aside. American journalism can do better than the awful job shown today. As I have said before, the side who's candidate preforms like shit often blame the moderator. Trump performed fine, and the moderators sucked ass. Sincerely and objectively ^.^
So actually trying to get the candidates to answer the question they are asked means they suck. I guess they should let them just let completely disregard it right.
|
It is a myth that authoritarianism is unpopular.
|
|
|
Ouch, I'm reliving Cruz and his daughter during the primary.
|
She has been practicing that for years.
|
Even the poll for the last debate on TL ended up getting spammed up for Trump. I think the debate was kind of a wash. People had hilariously low expectations of Trump and I think that is affecting peoples appraisals of the result. I'm horrified we have a presidential candidate threatening to jail his opponent because he wasn't satisfied with the investigation that went through the proper channels.
|
This will be the topic tomorrow. Have no doubt.
|
On October 10 2016 12:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:48 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:29 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:28 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:17 Danglars wrote:Only Hillary could've whiffed the lay-up that could've put away his shots at the presidency. And I don't think it's the kind of debate performance more preparation can fix. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/785309904458227716In the Tie/minor +Trump of the debate, the moderation was 0.o I keep on lowering my expectations and they keep on beating them. At some point, it might be time to realize that it isn't the moderator's fault that these debates are a disaster. Maybe it's the disaster that they have to try to moderate. I also found it amusing that, of course, Trump + his supporters started whining about how unfair everything was the moment the debate started. They're responsible for their own performance not the results. We could just have a robot voice read the questions and no one hold the candidates accountable for what they say? And then everyone would whine about the quality of the questions and who got to go first. The American people are the only ones to hold candidates accountable for what they say. I don't care who whines about robots, that's a silly aside. American journalism can do better than the awful job shown today. As I have said before, the side who's candidate preforms like shit often blame the moderator. Trump performed fine, and the moderators sucked ass. Sincerely and objectively ^.^ You know your personal opinion on something can never be objective, right? Like every.
And you're just like so many political journalists and Clinton campaign workers throwing shit at walls seeing what will stick. He's criticizing the moderators, so you must accuse his side of whining, he must be trying to prop up a lousy performance, etc.
I'm wondering less about the robot that might replace the debate moderators and more about the robot that could replace your post writing. Why even try to have an honest discussion if the result is practically machine predictable?
On October 10 2016 12:51 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:48 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:29 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:28 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:17 Danglars wrote:Only Hillary could've whiffed the lay-up that could've put away his shots at the presidency. And I don't think it's the kind of debate performance more preparation can fix. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/785309904458227716In the Tie/minor +Trump of the debate, the moderation was 0.o I keep on lowering my expectations and they keep on beating them. At some point, it might be time to realize that it isn't the moderator's fault that these debates are a disaster. Maybe it's the disaster that they have to try to moderate. I also found it amusing that, of course, Trump + his supporters started whining about how unfair everything was the moment the debate started. They're responsible for their own performance not the results. We could just have a robot voice read the questions and no one hold the candidates accountable for what they say? And then everyone would whine about the quality of the questions and who got to go first. The American people are the only ones to hold candidates accountable for what they say. I don't care who whines about robots, that's a silly aside. American journalism can do better than the awful job shown today. As I have said before, the side who's candidate preforms like shit often blame the moderator. Trump performed fine, and the moderators sucked ass. Sincerely and objectively ^.^ So actually trying to get the candidates to answer the question they are asked means they suck. I guess they should let them just let completely disregard it right.
They were ass-backwards and I'm rating their performance below Hillary. Because, like I said earlier, tie or trump slight outperform.
|
Overall, I don't think Trump got crushed nearly as badly in this second debate as he did in the first. I'd even go so far as to say that tonight's debate may have been a draw, if the average American voter doesn't really care that Trump rarely answered a question, thought that a single Senator can overrule the President on bills, or looked like a total creeper the whole night. Regardless, I don't see either candidate getting a post-debate bump in the polls.
|
United States7226 Posts
On October 10 2016 12:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Let's be real, with all the cheering going on from the audience, are you even the slightest bit skeptical about them being 'undecided voters'? They are picked by Pew Research. But this is the internet and we can be skeptical about everything, not matter how well documented.
Oh I'm not skeptical about everything, but there are good reasons for being skeptical about the idea that these are truly undecided voters just because they clicked a few questions on a pew poll and got a positive response, which was likely the metric for deciding they were undecided
Undecided voters don't enthusiastically cheer when one candidate burns another
I'm willing to bet the majority of that audience knew who they were voting for before tonight
|
On October 10 2016 12:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 12:49 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:48 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:29 Plansix wrote:On October 10 2016 12:28 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 12:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 10 2016 12:17 Danglars wrote:Only Hillary could've whiffed the lay-up that could've put away his shots at the presidency. And I don't think it's the kind of debate performance more preparation can fix. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/785309904458227716In the Tie/minor +Trump of the debate, the moderation was 0.o I keep on lowering my expectations and they keep on beating them. At some point, it might be time to realize that it isn't the moderator's fault that these debates are a disaster. Maybe it's the disaster that they have to try to moderate. I also found it amusing that, of course, Trump + his supporters started whining about how unfair everything was the moment the debate started. They're responsible for their own performance not the results. We could just have a robot voice read the questions and no one hold the candidates accountable for what they say? And then everyone would whine about the quality of the questions and who got to go first. The American people are the only ones to hold candidates accountable for what they say. I don't care who whines about robots, that's a silly aside. American journalism can do better than the awful job shown today. As I have said before, the side who's candidate preforms like shit often blame the moderator. Trump performed fine, and the moderators sucked ass. Sincerely and objectively ^.^ You know your personal opinion on something can never be objective, right? Like every. And you're just like so many political journalists and Clinton campaign workers throwing shit at walls seeing what will stick. He's criticizing the moderators, so you must accuse his side of whining, he must be trying to prop up a lousy performance, etc. I'm wondering less about the robot that might replace the debate moderators and more about the robot that could replace your post writing. Why even try to have an honest discussion if the result is practically machine predictable?
One could equally create a robot to complain about the moderators whenever they make any interjection.
Do not throw stones when you live in a glass house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
