Elections Clinton vs. Trump Polls thread, v2

Who wins Florida on election day?

  • Total voters
    116
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
HendoRuaGOAT said:
Prove it Jack. Show the quote where I didn't infer, but straight up stated that you were using alts, or admit that you are a liar and a fat-mouth son.
Click to expand...

All you are doing here is admitting you were brave enough to infer it, a few times, but not man enough to outright accuse him.
 
m52nickerson said:
All you are doing here is admitting you were brave enough to infer it, a few times, but not man enough to outright accuse him.
Click to expand...


And yet, inaccurate language when used over and over, after being corrected, is not just a lie, but an intentional lie.

Yes, I inferred it, and I make no apologies for questioning a 6 year old white belt account jumping into that thread.

Next person to try and gang jump me with Jack, don't be surprised if you find yourself surrounded by me and a few of my allies here soon.
 
Last edited:
HendoRuaGOAT said:
And yet, inaccurate language when used over and over, after being corrected, is not just a lie, but an intentional lie.

Yes, I inferred it, and I make no apologies for questioning a 6 year old white belt account jumping into that thread.
Click to expand...

Not inaccurate at all. You did in fact accuse Jack of using an alt account by infering it. That is what Jack has said. In your own post you specify a "direct" accusation. See, you needed to add the word "direct" to make your statement true.
 
m52nickerson said:
Not inaccurate at all. You did in fact accuse Jack of using an alt account by infering it. That is what Jack has said. In your own post you specify a "direct" accusation. See, you needed to add the word "direct" to make your statement true.
Click to expand...


OK, so now you want to call me a coward, and claim that I did accuse him.

Who is being dishonest here now?
 
Last edited:
HendoRuaGOAT said:
Maybe in this case you are just arrogant, and incapable of explaining why it is OK to cite black polling, but not white polling, and don't see the insanity involved in claiming that the poster who posted the re-tweet, or Lead Salad's response, didn't have anything to do with the Evangelical part of the poll.

I think Lead Salads shaking his head at that re-tweet as well as the poster who posted, had to do with Trump playing right into the narrative of him being a racist, by posting that poll.

Of course, ye with the great crystal ball, tell me more about your surety of the motivations of the comments on the re-tweet, and why people thought it was a bad move. Tell me more about how this has to do with my lack of understanding of the primary process. Seems legit.(E-sarcasm)

Also, please keep showing what a lacky you are to Jack, by taking up his line of me being a dishonest poster.
Click to expand...
So you're doubling down on your idiocy. Shocking. Lead Salad posts all the time about polls. Everyone that is mildly aware of polls is going to be aware that Trump will have a massive lead amongst evangelicals, particularly white evangelicals. Your obfuscation is, frankly, pathetic.

As for being some lacky of Jack's, your dishonesty shows through regardless of Jack.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
And yet, inaccurate language when used over and over, after being corrected, is not just a lie, but an intentional lie.

Yes, I inferred it, and I make no apologies for questioning a 6 year old white belt account jumping into that thread.

Next person to try and gang jump me with Jack, don't be surprised if you find yourself surrounded by me and a few of my allies here soon.
Click to expand...
You're starting to sound nutty fyi
 
To the whole evangelical/ black voters conversation, they are different scenarios entirely if we are talking about the democratic primary and the general election. I posted about this right before Iowa how Hillary's strong grip on black voters was going to be a big problem with Bernie because of how large of a percentage they represented in that primary. I even did examples using prior democratic primary data showing just how much of the white vote Bernie would need to win just to compensate for losing the black voters by that margin.

With the evangelical stat, this isn't a key demographic that both sides are battling for. It would be just as silly as Hillary bragging about destroying Trump with black voters in the general election. That happens each cycle based on the party, not the candidate really. There is an argument for larger turnouts of one group or another, for example, a large evangelical turnout compared to prior elections definitely benefits Trump or black turnout vice versa to Clinton. The poll itself that Trump posted however has nothing to do with turnout and it looked like a silly attempt at finding an data possible to show he isn't losing this election right now by a large margin.
 
Lead Salad said:
To the whole evangelical/ black voters conversation, they are different scenarios entirely if we are talking about the democratic primary and the general election. I posted about this right before Iowa how Hillary's strong grip on black voters was going to be a big problem with Bernie because of how large of a percentage they represented in that primary. I even did examples using prior democratic primary data showing just how much of the white vote Bernie would need to win just to compensate for losing the black voters by that margin.

With the evangelical stat, this isn't a key demographic that both sides are battling for. It would be just as silly as Hillary bragging about destroying Trump with black voters in the general election. That happens each cycle based on the party, not the candidate really. There is an argument for larger turnouts of one group or another, for example, a large evangelical turnout compared to prior elections definitely benefits Trump or black turnout vice versa to Clinton. The poll itself that Trump posted however has nothing to do with turnout and it looked like a silly attempt at finding an data possible to show he isn't losing this election right now by a large margin.
Click to expand...
Hendo says you're lying because... SJW/he's an idiot/cucks/reasons/?

I DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE!!!!!
 
Jack V Savage said:
You know what would be cool (@Lead Salad): A Politifact-type thread. Like if two people are disputing something factual, an unrelated panel revolves it.
Click to expand...

I don't think people would come to agreement even in that instance and it kinda outsources part of a discussion with the poster. If two people are arguing points and the one person is providing good references/points, I think the people reading the exchange usually come out seeing who was right/wrong between the two, even if one side still doesn't agree.

It is an interesting idea though. Definitely would encourage posters on how to research specific issues and look for the truth for something rather than whatever fits their ideology. I know I could benefit from something like it.
 
UpaLoompa said:
Hendo says you're lying because... SJW/he's an idiot/cucks/reasons/?

I DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wait, I'm a cuck now? Maybe I should've been clearer on what I meant by black turnout.
 
Lead Salad said:
I don't think people would come to agreement even in that instance and it kinda outsources part of a discussion with the poster. If two people are arguing points and the one person is providing good references/points, I think the people reading the exchange usually come out seeing who was right/wrong between the two, even if one side still doesn't agree.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if it worked that way, but I'm not sure it does. I think what happens a lot is that if someone is offering a plausible-sounding defense of what they want to believe, they see that as proving a point, and less-knowledgable/interested people see two plausible-sounding views and figure that either they're both wrong (especially if it degenerates to mudslinging) or the truth is somewhere in the middle. But usually, there really is an objectively true answer, and people who don't know the subject are worse off for reading the exchange, even when the truth is buried in it.

Anyway, it's a call for some other people to do work so I don't expect it to get answered, but it would be nice. Another one that would be good would be data and data sources that are relevant to a lot of threads that pop up. Like, presented without commentary.
 
Jack V Savage said:
It would be nice if it worked that way, but I'm not sure it does. I think what happens a lot is that if someone is offering a plausible-sounding defense of what they want to believe, they see that as proving a point, and less-knowledgable/interested people see two plausible-sounding views and figure that either they're both wrong (especially if it degenerates to mudslinging) or the truth is somewhere in the middle. But usually, there really is an objectively true answer, and people who don't know the subject are worse off for reading the exchange, even when the truth is buried in it.
Click to expand...

Yea, I guess that could happen. There are instances where I am unsure who is correct whether its due to their lack of explaining their premise or maybe not having enough background on whats being talked about. I can say there are many times I see an exchange and it's very clear who is on level ground and who isn't. The longer you're in this subforum or reading the news, I'm assuming the better able you are to discern this. Then again, the longer you spend in this subforum also could radicalize a person as well with the topics that get the majority of attention too

Jack V Savage said:
Anyway, it's a call for some other people to do work so I don't expect it to get answered, but it would be nice. Another one that would be good would be data and data sources that are relevant to a lot of threads that pop up. Like, presented without commentary.
Click to expand...

I'd like that a lot and would probably take less effort than the previous one since it's kinda a one off thing to gather. There are instances where I am unsure where the best place to find statistics are for certain topics.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
Maybe in this case you are just arrogant, and incapable of explaining why it is OK to cite black polling, but not white polling, and don't see the insanity involved in claiming that the poster who posted the re-tweet, or Lead Salad's response, didn't have anything to do with the Evangelical part of the poll.

I think Lead Salads shaking his head at that re-tweet as well as the poster who posted, had to do with Trump playing right into the narrative of him being a racist, by posting that poll.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong about referencing the white vote and it isn't inherently racist to do. I shook my head because of my post above.

Lead Salad said:
To the whole evangelical/ black voters conversation, they are different scenarios entirely if we are talking about the democratic primary and the general election. I posted about this right before Iowa how Hillary's strong grip on black voters was going to be a big problem with Bernie because of how large of a percentage they represented in that primary. I even did examples using prior democratic primary data showing just how much of the white vote Bernie would need to win just to compensate for losing the black voters by that margin.

With the evangelical stat, this isn't a key demographic that both sides are battling for. It would be just as silly as Hillary bragging about destroying Trump with black voters in the general election. That happens each cycle based on the party, not the candidate really. There is an argument for larger turnouts of one group or another, for example, a large evangelical turnout compared to prior elections definitely benefits Trump or black turnout vice versa to Clinton. The poll itself that Trump posted however has nothing to do with turnout and it looked like a silly attempt at finding an data possible to show he isn't losing this election right now by a large margin.
Click to expand...

He's referencing one of the most locked demographics the GOP party has and it doesn't signify at all how well he is doing in this election. Also, evangelical is not a race. Though there is a white majority to the group, there still is portion of black population within it.

The tweet is the same as Clinton posting a poll showing 95% of black voter support. It's a complete, "well duh" post that doesn't tell us anything about who is or isn't winning right now. He had to find that type of stat to find anything positive in the polls for him.
 
Lead Salad said:
There is nothing wrong about referencing the white vote and it isn't inherently racist to do. I shook my head because of my post above.



He's referencing one of the most locked demographics the GOP party has and it doesn't signify at all how well he is doing in this election. Also, evangelical is not a race. Though there is a white majority to the group, there still is portion of black population within it.

The tweet is the same as Clinton posting a poll showing 95% of black voter support. It's a complete, "well duh" post that doesn't tell us anything about who is or isn't winning right now. He had to find that type of stat to find anything positive in the polls for him.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, and yet I see Clinton's black support numbers quoted in the media constantly. I believe last I heard it was at 90%.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
Fair enough, and yet I see Clinton's black support numbers quoted in the media constantly. I believe last I heard it was at 90%.
Click to expand...

I don't really watch cable news or anything so I wouldn't know. Point is they are not the demographics that win/lose you the GE unless there is a significant swing since previous elections or the turnout is significantly higher or lower than previous elections. His tweet showed neither of that and was a null tweet.
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
You're starting to sound nutty fyi
Click to expand...


Cool, don't care if you think so. I am being stalked by Jack from thread to thread., and now his buddies have joined in as well.

Remember when jack and Anung would track their dispute from thread to thread, well Jack is trying to do that now with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,204
Messages
57,974,318
Members
175,888
Latest member
whatsername

Share this page

Back
Top