EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5602
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 16 2016 15:01 xDaunt wrote: Oh, by the way, Wikileaks released an email that confirms what everyone already knew: Obama could have had a status of forces agreement in Iraq if he wanted one. So yeah, let's finally dispense with the retarded pretext that Obama didn't abandon Iraq of his own volition. Again, when entire documents are leaks, stop trying to cherry pick. The Iraqis are keenly interested in understanding President-Elect Obama's position on the SOFA. Indeed, a number of senior Iraqi officials - including a number of Prime Minister's most senior advisors -- are claiming that Mr. Obama will not support a SOFA signed by President Bush and interpreting the few messages publicly available as a pretext to reject the agreement on the table. After you have had time to review the SOFA text, we ask that the Obama transition team express support for the SOFA, lest the Iraqis use previous positions or the absence of comment to scuttle the deal. By way of suggestion, we offer the following as possible reassurance to the Iraqis, perhaps in letters to Talibani and Maliki: "We believe that any Status of Forces Agreement, or Strategic Framework Agreement, should include commitments by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and to foreswear permanent bases. Any such agreements must provide strong protections and authorities for our troops. We will respect the agreement as negotiated and not insist it be ratified by the US Congress. We hope it can be concluded as soon as possible. " Bolded is what everyone tells you every single time this comes up. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On October 16 2016 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Surely just a coincidence, of course... Well i'm black and i would vote for Trump there are are many African Americans that would vote for him as well. So that's not so black and white as you try to put it (no pun intended). | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 16 2016 17:22 ImFromPortugal wrote: Well i'm black and i would vote for Trump there are are many African Americans that would vote for him as well. So that's not so black and white as you try to put it (no pun intended). May not be black and white, but when Trump's polling single digit percentages (I think?) in the black demographic, it's not really effecting his votes. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7918 Posts
On October 16 2016 17:25 WolfintheSheep wrote: May not be black and white, but when Trump's polling single digit percentages (I think?) in the black demographic, it's not really effecting his votes. I don't know what are the recent figures, but in july , Trump was scoring 0% in the polls for black people in ohio. Considering his slogan refers to the good old time america belonged to white men and blacks were required to stand in the buses, it's surprising any black persô would consider voting for him at all. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On October 16 2016 18:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't know what are the recent figures, but in july , Trump was scoring 0% in the polls for black people in ohio. Considering his slogan refers to the good old time america belonged to white men and blacks were required to stand in the buses, it's surprising any black persô would consider voting for him at all. I have seen many vocal black Trump supporters online ofc i know the majority of the minorities will vote for Hillary but still is refreshing to see a different perspective and people that share ancestry with me choosing a different path. There are some famous african-americans as well that will vote for Trump and already got shunned by their views. Interesting to see this guy calmly talk about his point of view while everyone around him just screams and attacks him while saying Trump is the devil. (sry didn't find another source for the video i despise alex as much as you guys do) Regarding US foreign policy and Syria, it seems things are shifting now with even Turkey demanding that the rebels end their relationship with Alqaeda. So there you go, for aid to reach the besieged people in Aleppo the extremists must go, that's what the russians have been saying for quite some time now. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18129 Posts
On October 16 2016 14:53 CatharsisUT wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a04rpSi.png) Seriously, just terrible writing on that article. There is a serious lack of info on your x-axis. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On October 16 2016 18:49 Acrofales wrote: There is a serious lack of info on your x-axis. Considering one point on the X-axis is Sep. 26. and another is Nov. 8. I would assume the X-axis is time. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18129 Posts
On October 16 2016 19:12 RoomOfMush wrote: Considering one point on the X-axis is Sep. 26. and another is Nov. 8. I would assume the X-axis is time. Got that, but if his point is to show that pussygate and the 2nd debate did/didn't have any effect on the polls, you'd need to know where in the graph they happened, which isn't at all clear. The 26th of September was well before that. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7918 Posts
On October 16 2016 19:15 Acrofales wrote: Got that, but if his point is to show that pussygate and the 2nd debate did/didn't have any effect on the polls, you'd need to know where in the graph they happened, which isn't at all clear. The 26th of September was well before that. A poll aggregator like 538´s is not great to measure the effect of an event very precisely in time because it combines polls of different length in time. A poll conducted during 2 weeks with T's lewd tape in the middle will give half of the Clinton bumb, for example. Also people change their mind for several reasons, rarely one. The disastrous first debate, the tape, his bullyish behaviour in the second debate, and the general tone of his campaign that has got full populist are to be considered as one big thing. What is certain is that nothing happened in that time lapse that was a very needed game changer. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7918 Posts
Looks like shitposting for Trump has become a lucrative activity. Gotta love this campaign. As Oliver put it: "look up. No further up, even further, wayyyy up there. You see that? This is rock bottom!" | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On October 16 2016 19:15 Acrofales wrote: Got that, but if his point is to show that pussygate and the 2nd debate did/didn't have any effect on the polls, you'd need to know where in the graph they happened, which isn't at all clear. The 26th of September was well before that. First debate: Monday, September 26, 2016 VP debate: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 Second debate: Sunday, October 9, 2016 "pussy-gate" was sometime before the second debate iirc. About 2 days before that? in that way, the article IS horrible suggesting that Trump has not lost support since the first debate (sep 26th) when you can clearly see that going on. And yes, it gets a little fuzzy with the grab-them-by-the-pussy as well as the 2nd debate. Can't really tell what is caused by what but he has clearly lost ever since Sep 26th (hence that date being highlighted in the pic I'd assume) I also think you completly misunderstand him because I did not get the notion that "his point is to show that pussygate and the 2nd debate did/didn't have any effect on the polls". The very first sentence from the linked article in question is Donald Trump has lost little support since the first presidential debate, despite days of damaging news stories about his treatment of women, according to a new poll. after all | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
On October 16 2016 18:49 Acrofales wrote: There is a serious lack of info on your x-axis. It's a standard line graph/ time-series graph... The website makes that more clear. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
On October 16 2016 17:22 ImFromPortugal wrote: Well i'm black and i would vote for Trump there are are many African Americans that would vote for him as well. So that's not so black and white as you try to put it (no pun intended). I'm not sure what your definition of "many" is, but something like 95+% of African Americans are explicitly not voting for him. He has extremely low black support. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On October 16 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's a standard line graph/ time-series graph... The website makes that more clear. The 2 dates on the x-axis are insufficient. There need to be a lot more data points so you can see proper time progression. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
On October 16 2016 21:09 Gorsameth wrote: The 2 dates on the x-axis are insufficient. There need to be a lot more data points so you can see proper time progression. ? Every single day has at least one data point on that graph, as that graph gets updated every few hours... It sounds like some people are trying to dismiss 538 graphs without even going to the website, which has been linked dozens of times already... Here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 16 2016 19:15 Acrofales wrote: Got that, but if his point is to show that pussygate and the 2nd debate did/didn't have any effect on the polls, you'd need to know where in the graph they happened, which isn't at all clear. The 26th of September was well before that. The graph is made so that (on the website) when you highlight a particular point, the date shows up. It doesn't have a normally labeled X axis. | ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
1. Article says Trump hasn't lost much support since first debate (Sep. 26) 2. I say "man that's a terrible article, because there is other information out there that disproves conclusions you might draw from one poll." 3. In response, I post a screenshot of the 538 probability model with the date of the first debate highlighted, as that is all that is relevant to proving or disproving the line in the article. The x axis is obviously dates...two of them are listed. That all seems pretty straightforward. Plus, the idea that anyone is on this thread and isn't familiar with the 538 model is fairly incredible. This feels like intentional obtuseness, but I don't know the thread participants well enough to know why posters would be feigning ignorance. | ||
| ||
