Elections Clinton vs. Trump Polls thread, v2

[AnGrYcRoW]

The problem is that he's said elsewhere that he has no problem lying if it furthers his agenda. That makes it tough to tell if he was generally mistaken or if he's just being a tool.

Seriously?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Seriously?

Yeah. To be specific he said there was no problem with lying to rebut a dishonest claim.
I'm not sure how that actually works though, if it is a dishonest claim you should be able to either provide contrary evidence or demand evidence of the claim.
He also stated that feigning certainty is fine, that also is something I'd view as lying.

 

[Irenaeus]

The problem is that he's said elsewhere that he has no problem lying if it furthers his agenda. That makes it tough to tell if he was generally mistaken or if he's just being a tool.

If that's from the arguing with Jack in the betting sticky, I think I'd be inclined to a somewhat more generous interprentation. After all, he talked about the neccessity of feigning surety (which I don't really agree with), not making outright fake factual claims or some such.

 

[UpaLoompa]

If that's from the arguing with Jack in the betting sticky, I think I'd be inclined to a somewhat more generous interprentation. After all, he talked about the neccessity of feigning surety (which I don't really agree with), not making outright fake factual claims or some such.

He followed it up with stating that lying was okay if it was against a "dishonest claim".
Personally if someone makes a dishonest claim about me I place more weight on demanding that they substantiate their claim or demonstrate otherwise that it was a dishonest claim.
Suffice to say he's fine with blatant dishonesty when convenient to him.

I mean do you really think his ignorance here was honest or, rather, was a dishonest attempt to make it about race? (Though, to be fair, elsewhere he struggles with the fact that 1200 = twelve hundred)

 

[Irenaeus]

He followed it up with stating that lying was okay if it was against a "dishonest claim".

I feel it was still in the clear context of feigning surety.

I mean do you really think his ignorance here was honest or an attempt to make it about race?

I don't know, but I tend to assume ignorance over malice as a general principle. It's not like trying to make this about race is some sort of good move in any way either.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I feel it was still in the clear context of feigning surety.

Fair enough. Given our past exchanges I'm less inclined to give that benefit of the doubt but I can see where you're coming from.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fair enough. Given our past exchanges I'm less inclined to give that benefit of the doubt but I can see where you're coming from.

Feigning certainty is also lying, though, and also fits your initial description.

I think the real problem is that he sees his posts here as part of some kind of political action, as opposed to just people talking, and so he feels justified in doing that kind of thing (and assumes that others think about it the same way). That's why I latched on to that "platform for building consensus" line.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You're not understanding what the criticism was. The criticism was that it is an irrelevant demographic. You inferred that the problem was in regards to race but that wasn't implied. Hell, racial demographics have been key in all discussions of polling.

The question I have is whether this is an honest misunderstanding on your part or if you were being dishonest (since you've admitted to lying to further your position you're hard to take serious).

I don't believe for one second that @ Lead Salad, or the poster who posted that tweet thought it was stupid because he cited evangelicals. They had a problem with it because of Trump citing white support while being called a racist.

I don't believe for one second that you don't understand this.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

But the issue people had wasn't with citing Evangelicals, it was with citing white voters.

Why is it OK to cite black support, but not white support?

How the fuck does somebody who makes 700 posts per month on a political forum fail to grasp something this basic?

This is really simple. Trump is supposed to be dominating with white evangelicals. Any Republican in the GE is going to do extremely well with that group. The fact that he's twittering about those numbers is funny/sad.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Feigning certainty is also lying, though, and also fits your initial description.

I think the real problem is that he sees his posts here as part of some kind of political action, as opposed to just people talking, and so he feels justified in doing that kind of thing (and assumes that others think about it the same way). That's why I latched on to that "platform for building consensus" line.

It is lying to defend against a dishonest attack. We already went over this.

I guess excluding that info from your description is not lying somehow though right?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't believe for one second that @ Lead Salad, or the poster who posted that tweet thought it was stupid because he cited evangelicals. They had a problem with it because of Trump citing white support while being called a racist.

I don't believe for one second that you don't understand this.

Then you're not familiar with Lead Salad's posting about polls. He posts about polls all the goddamn time. Anyone that posts about polls recognizes the inanity and stupidity of Trump tweeting his white evangelical support.
Maybe in this case you were ignorant and not just dishonest after all.

 

[Quipling]

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is lying to defend against a dishonest attack. We already went over this.

What does that even mean? I'm talking about you admitting to feigning certainty. That's dishonest, and I don't see how it would ever be justifiable.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Then you're not familiar with Lead Salad's posting about polls. He posts about polls all the goddamn time. Anyone that posts about polls recognizes the inanity and stupidity of Trump tweeting his white evangelical support.
Maybe in this case you were ignorant and not just dishonest after all.

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.

 

[VivaRevolution]

What does that even mean? I'm talking about you admitting to feigning certainty. That's dishonest, and I don't see how it would ever be justifiable.

You claiming it is dishonest without addressing the fact that it is a defense to a dishonest attack, is what makes you such a piece of feces Jack, and on par for the course.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Also, please keep showing what a lacky you are to Jack, by taking up his line of me being a dishonest poster.

If you don't want to be considered dishonest, maybe stop A) lying all the time and B) defending lying.

You claiming it is dishonest without addressing the fact that it is a defense to a dishonest attack, is what makes you such a piece of feces Jack, and on par for the course.

What does that even mean? Can you give an example how lying is good if it's in defense of an attack?

 

[VivaRevolution]

If you don't want to be considered dishonest, maybe stop A) lying all the time and B) defending lying.



What does that even mean? Can you give an example how lying is good if it's in defense of an attack?

How about you take my bet on creating a poll for who is more dishonest, you or me, or STFU?

 

[Jack V Savage]

How about you take my bet on creating a poll for who is more dishonest, you or me, or STFU?

How about you find a single example of me lying?

I can cite many examples of you lying, just about me (alts, posting date, pretending to be confused about me and Greoric's bet, etc.), plus your own comments admitting to feigning certainty.

 

[VivaRevolution]

How about you find a single example of me lying?

I can cite many examples of you lying, just about me (alts, posting date, pretending to be confused about me and Greoric's bet, etc.), plus your own comments admitting to feigning certainty.

Sure right here. I never claimed you had an alt account, I inferred it, you lying sack of feces.

Show me the quote where I clearly stated you were using an alt, or admit you are a lying sack of feces Crooked Jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure right here. I never claimed you had an alt account, I inferred it, you lying sack of feces.

Show me the quote where I clearly stated you were using an alt, or admit you are a lying sack of feces Crooked Jack.

You accused me of using alts. If you're denying it now, that's another lie.