|
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 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around.
That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless.
|
On October 16 2016 11:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. biology]major is using the New Gingrich approach... feelings (specifically, only the minority of viewers who think Trump won), not facts. Yeah you rely on your objective facts to a debate which wasn't scored by any formal rules. Good job, I admire your objectivity.
The "score" is actually very simple and you can use it to see who won the debate. The first metric is "who did the majority say won the debate?" By every poll she won and by a lot. The second metric is did you gain in the polls and the best thing he can say is he didn't lose anymore but he didn't gain any support so he is losing that metric as well.
|
On October 16 2016 11:30 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:26 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. biology]major is using the New Gingrich approach... feelings (specifically, only the minority of viewers who think Trump won), not facts. Yeah you rely on your objective facts to a debate which wasn't scored by any formal rules. Good job, I admire your objectivity. The "score" is actually very simple and you can use it to see who won the debate. The first metric is "who did the majority say won the debate?" By every poll she won and by a lot. The second metric is did you gain in the polls and the best thing he can say is he didn't lose anymore but he didn't gain any support so he is losing that metric as well.
Again, how do you expect opinion polls to be accurate in determining an outcome when a day prior he was caught saying obscene shit that already put his reputation in the gutter? Especially among women.
|
On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless.
Here is your problem. You are right that the 40-42% of people who wI'll vote for him loved his performance BUT that is not enough to win, you need more to win and the majority which you need to win says she did better
|
On October 16 2016 11:30 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:26 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. biology]major is using the New Gingrich approach... feelings (specifically, only the minority of viewers who think Trump won), not facts. Yeah you rely on your objective facts to a debate which wasn't scored by any formal rules. Good job, I admire your objectivity. The "score" is actually very simple and you can use it to see who won the debate. The first metric is "who did the majority say won the debate?" By every poll she won and by a lot. The second metric is did you gain in the polls and the best thing he can say is he didn't lose anymore but he didn't gain any support so he is losing that metric as well.
Agreed; you beat me to it.
|
On October 16 2016 11:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:30 Adreme wrote:On October 16 2016 11:26 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. biology]major is using the New Gingrich approach... feelings (specifically, only the minority of viewers who think Trump won), not facts. Yeah you rely on your objective facts to a debate which wasn't scored by any formal rules. Good job, I admire your objectivity. The "score" is actually very simple and you can use it to see who won the debate. The first metric is "who did the majority say won the debate?" By every poll she won and by a lot. The second metric is did you gain in the polls and the best thing he can say is he didn't lose anymore but he didn't gain any support so he is losing that metric as well. Again, how do you expect opinion polls to be accurate in determining an outcome when a day prior he was caught saying obscene shit that already put his reputation in the gutter? Especially among women.
"Trump totally won the debate hands down, but there's no way to know whether or not he won the debate because previous things he said might have confounded the results"??????
|
On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless.
Again, Trump supporters don't matter in the slightest. There aren't enough of you to elect anyone to anything and you're all going to think he won regardless of the outcome. "Scientific polls meaningless" Ok bud.
|
On October 16 2016 11:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:33 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:30 Adreme wrote:On October 16 2016 11:26 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. biology]major is using the New Gingrich approach... feelings (specifically, only the minority of viewers who think Trump won), not facts. Yeah you rely on your objective facts to a debate which wasn't scored by any formal rules. Good job, I admire your objectivity. The "score" is actually very simple and you can use it to see who won the debate. The first metric is "who did the majority say won the debate?" By every poll she won and by a lot. The second metric is did you gain in the polls and the best thing he can say is he didn't lose anymore but he didn't gain any support so he is losing that metric as well. Again, how do you expect opinion polls to be accurate in determining an outcome when a day prior he was caught saying obscene shit that already put his reputation in the gutter? Especially among women. "Trump totally won the debate hands down, but there's no way to know whether or not he won the debate because previous things he said might have confounded the results"??????
That was my opinion, do I need to explicitly say that? I thought it was pretty obvious, given that the polls are meaningless in light of the trump tapes already putting him in the ground.
|
On October 16 2016 11:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless. Again, Trump supporters don't matter in the slightest. There aren't enough of you to elect anyone to anything and you're all going to think he won regardless of the outcome. "Scientific polls meaningless" Ok bud.
I thought he lost the first debate, again I'm amused by how you guys think you alone have an objective look at reality.
|
On October 16 2016 11:30 Plansix wrote:
Rigged election you say. But who is trying to rig it.
Varoga estimates that 45,000 people, most of them African Americans, might not be able to vote on Nov. 8 if investigators put a hold on applications collected by the group during its investigation.
Surely just a coincidence, of course...
|
On October 16 2016 11:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless. Again, Trump supporters don't matter in the slightest. There aren't enough of you to elect anyone to anything and you're all going to think he won regardless of the outcome. "Scientific polls meaningless" Ok bud. I thought he lost the first debate, again I'm amused by how you guys think you have an objective look at reality.
Lol, I understand how this works and you clearly don't. You think the things Trump has been doing for the last 2 months are helpful to him when they're actually catastrophic. Stop thinking like a Trump supporter and start thinking like an independent, a woman, a minority and you'll understand why he's losing the game so fucking bad. The only people with opinions that matter are undecideds and people in the middle who might shift their vote. They're everything, no one else on earth matters.
|
On October 16 2016 11:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless. Again, Trump supporters don't matter in the slightest. There aren't enough of you to elect anyone to anything and you're all going to think he won regardless of the outcome. "Scientific polls meaningless" Ok bud.
I don't really understand the need to be dishonest in this situation...
You're making a demonstrably false statement given that biology major thought he lost the first debate.
And you follow it with "scientific polls meaningless", which is a different position from "scientific polls meaningless in this specific circumstance where they have been influenced by this clearly influential event".
I mean, come on.
|
On October 16 2016 11:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless. Again, Trump supporters don't matter in the slightest. There aren't enough of you to elect anyone to anything and you're all going to think he won regardless of the outcome. "Scientific polls meaningless" Ok bud. I don't really understand the need to be dishonest in this situation... You're making a demonstrably false statement given that biology major thought he lost the first debate. And you follow it with "scientific polls meaningless", which is a different position from "scientific polls meaningless in this specific circumstance where they have been influenced by this clearly influencial event". I mean, come on.
Those scientific polls are all we have to go on and he lost terribly in them. Would it have been more useful if they were more frequent as far as establishing pussy gate vs debate 2? Sure would, but they aren't. By all accounts he lost the second debate that he needed to not just win, but win in a landslide to undo the pussy gate damage. In no world did he do that. A loss, a slight win, or a push was actually still a big loss for him. If he actually won the debate big time people would have been talking about that, the news cycle would have shifted...but he didn't.
|
He did well enough that the GOP couldn't force him to quit outright. That's a loss for them, a win for him, probably a win for Clinton in the longrun.
|
On October 16 2016 11:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:43 Nebuchad wrote:On October 16 2016 11:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless. Again, Trump supporters don't matter in the slightest. There aren't enough of you to elect anyone to anything and you're all going to think he won regardless of the outcome. "Scientific polls meaningless" Ok bud. I don't really understand the need to be dishonest in this situation... You're making a demonstrably false statement given that biology major thought he lost the first debate. And you follow it with "scientific polls meaningless", which is a different position from "scientific polls meaningless in this specific circumstance where they have been influenced by this clearly influencial event". I mean, come on. Those scientific polls are all we have to go on and he lost terribly in them. Would it have been more useful if they were more frequent as far as establishing pussy gate vs debate 2? Sure would, but they aren't. By all accounts he lost the second debate that he needed to not just win, but win in a landslide to undo the pussy gate damage. In no world did he do that. A loss, a slight win, or a push was actually still a big loss for him. If he actually won the debate big time people would have been talking about that, the news cycle would have shifted...but he didn't.
Sure, all of that is correct. Which is why I don't really understand the need to be dishonest in this situation.
|
On October 16 2016 10:57 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's lobbying, more or less. Which is a discussion on its own, about the use of money and resources to get an audience and drown out the interests of people without the same.
But talking about bribery is silly. Hell, Nettles said it himself. 2001-2013. 739 speeches. Average of $210k per speech. If anything, that should tell you how much money you'd have to see involved to even enter bribe territory. Three speeches to Goldman Sachs in whatever years is less than 1% of their speech income. How is it silly? The second that lobbying involves paying or gifting politicians it becomes bribery. I'm quite certain that not just I, but neither GH nor the Trump supporters that used the word bribery referred to the isolated effect of one payment in the banana republic sense where you put money in someone's hand and receive a beneficial law or government contract. Show nested quote +1. Something (usually money) given in exchange for influence or as an inducement to dishonesty. Where are you guys getting the part where it involves requires illegality and an immediate specific task in return? Bribery can be and often is an investment rather than a one off.
They've been on this "If she's not convicted, it's just good politics" kick for a while now. They didn't even notice they quite quickly undermined everything Democrats had claimed about campaign finance up until they had to stop because Hillary was doing it.
Probably didn't even notice that Hillary's campaign finance plan is the same as the one suggested by Republicans here years ago.
|
On October 16 2016 11:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:43 Nebuchad wrote:On October 16 2016 11:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless. Again, Trump supporters don't matter in the slightest. There aren't enough of you to elect anyone to anything and you're all going to think he won regardless of the outcome. "Scientific polls meaningless" Ok bud. I don't really understand the need to be dishonest in this situation... You're making a demonstrably false statement given that biology major thought he lost the first debate. And you follow it with "scientific polls meaningless", which is a different position from "scientific polls meaningless in this specific circumstance where they have been influenced by this clearly influencial event". I mean, come on. Those scientific polls are all we have to go on and he lost terribly in them. Would it have been more useful if they were more frequent as far as establishing pussy gate vs debate 2? Sure would, but they aren't. By all accounts he lost the second debate that he needed to not just win, but win in a landslide to undo the pussy gate damage. In no world did he do that. A loss, a slight win, or a push was actually still a big loss for him. If he actually won the debate big time people would have been talking about that, the news cycle would have shifted...but he didn't.
When you have "scientific" polling after a catastrophic campaign event, the logical thing to do is say, hmm those polls are probably heavily influenced and not reliable. Pretending they are still accurate is like trump supporters thinking online polls are accurate. regarding the debate, I mean.
|
On October 16 2016 11:30 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 11:27 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 11:19 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:14 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:10 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:08 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 11:07 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
Is this like the last time when you thought Trump was going to win the debate? Trump smashed her the second debate. He lost the first debate. It's 1-1 as far as I'm concerned. that's factually untrue, he did not smash her the second debate. unless you're using definitions not based on facts., in which case, well, you have weird definitions. What facts are there to base debate results on? Zlefin gotta admire your pretense as the arbiter of objectivity. based on how it shifts the polling results. the ultimate goal of debates is to improve your winning chances; and the best estimate we have for that is how it affects your polling numbers. The second debate numbers are obscured by the trump tapes. He performed well, was calm and yet on the offense. I think if you scored it as if it was a collegiate debate tournament then yeah I can see how you think Clinton won. These debates are nothing of the sort, they have to be able to answer aggressive questions without looking bad, and she failed miserably at that. I will say he completely botched his apology at the start though. After each debate, some of the regular polls include a question along the lines of 'regardless of how you plan to vote who do you honestly think won the debate?'. There isn't a single one where he was ahead. In fact her lead for the 2nd debate in these polls was noticeably higher than her overall lead in voting intention. Which can only mean that unlike on the internet, more of Trump's voters thought Hillary won the debate than the other way around. That debate was everything a trump supporter would want. He got fucked by the tapes more than anything showing that all those "scientific" polls are meaningless.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood, because otherwise this is incredibly absurd. Let me give you an example of what I tried to say but didn't express very well, and they all pretty much look like this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/10/13/fox-news-poll-october-13-2016/
If the election were held today, how would you vote:
Likely voters: Clinton 49% / Trump 41%
Registered voters: Clinton 48% / Trump 39%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how you plan to vote, who do you honestly think won the debate:
Likely voters: Clinton 48 % / Trump 34%
Debate watchers (of likely voters): Clinton 52% / Trump 39%
Registered voters: Clinton 46% / Trump 33%
Debate watchers (of RV): Clinton 52% / Trump 38%
I think you misunderstood me based on your discussion with zlefin, thinking that I and others were saying he lost because his poll numbers in the 1st question went down. But it's the 2nd question and its relationship with the 1st that shows that he unequivocally lost. Even if you want to claim that he lost the debate because of the effect of the tape, there is no doubt that he specifically lost the debate as far as voters are concerned.
And mathematically, when you see that in voting intention he is behind by 8 and in the debate he's behind by 13-14, the only conclusion is that more Trump voters think that he lost the debate than Clinton's voters think she lost the debate. This is what people mean by saying that he factually lost, not how it affected people's intention to vote where indeed it cannot be separated from the tape, but when asked specifically about the debate.
|
I thought the conclusion after the debate was that it was too close to call either way. Why the hell are we trying to argue this again in retrospect?
|
Everything else about this election from here on, including the winner of the second debate and the final vote, is made in the context of "Pussygate".
Trying to separate polls about the debate from "Pussygate" is not only impossible, it would also be misleading as to the debate's effect on the rest of the election campaign and the final vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
