Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: terapined?????????
Of course he won the electoral college but that's a different subject
That is not what my response to Boz is addressing
Hmm, do judges come at you like I just did in the last sentence :-)
Come at me how?
Quote: terapinedMy response to Boz was regarding him saying Trump is getting more and more popular
I don't think his job approval will ever get above 50%
45% maybe. 50, no way
Has there ever been a President below 50% entire term?
Have there ever been polls so completely wrong as they were prior to the 2016 election?
Quote: terapinedQuote: aceofspadesThe Left doing their best 1984 doublespeak impression:
Shouldn't we all be free thinkers?
Absolutely
Perez Hilton is not the Left.
I can pick out crazies on the right and say they they represent the right
But its meaningless just as your post is meaningless
Who listens to Perez. Please. He's a publicity whore
I expect something much better then the above from a lawyer
Do you use twitter posts from kooks on internet to prove your case in court lol
It is admissible evidence
And, do you not think that Perez Hilton speaks for a majority of the Elite Left?
Should I quote Maxine Waters instead when it comes to the views of the Left - she is a Congressman, after all
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: terapinedQuote: aceofspadesThe Left doing their best 1984 doublespeak impression:
Shouldn't we all be free thinkers?
Absolutely
Perez Hilton is not the Left.
I can pick out crazies on the right and say they they represent the right
But its meaningless just as your post is meaningless
Who listens to Perez. Please. He's a publicity whore
I expect something much better then the above from a lawyer
Do you use twitter posts from kooks on internet to prove your case in court lol
It is admissible evidence
And, do you not think that Perez Hilton speaks for a majority of the Elite Left?
Should I quote Maxine Waters instead when it comes to the views of the Left - she is a Congressman, after all
You use Perez Hilton twitter post in your court cases?
weird
Perez Hilton speaks for himself
AOS speaks for himself
I speak for myself
Trump Speaks for himself
Alex Jones, "who speaks for the right" says Newtown is fake
With your false logic, all conservatives think Newtown is fake
Are you really a lawyer?
Quote: terapinedHas Trumps approval ever been over 50%
Has he ever gotten more the 50% of the vote
No
No
But he is 100% the President !!!
Quote: terapined...With your false logic...
This is just comedy gold right here. As the ancient hawaiians used to say, "The pot calling the kettle black."
TRUMP 2020 Campaign Slogan
Poor Lefties
No chance.
P.S. The overflowing crowd in Elkhart Indiana loved him tonight
Quote: wellwellwellP.S. The overflowing crowd in Elkhart Indiana loved him tonight
As long as the circus isn't in town, I imagine they get a good turnout.
Quote: aceofspadesHave there ever been polls so completely wrong as they were prior to the 2016 election?
The polls were completely wrong about Trump's
popularity in 2016, yet those same polls are
totally right today about his popularity?
Yeah, no.
Quote: aceofspadesHave there ever been polls so completely wrong as they were prior to the 2016 election?
Remember, these polls only survey a few hundred to about a thousand people..i think the sample size is way too small to trust any poll
Polls get whacky due to other things, such as a poor sample set that’s not diversified. If everyone you poll is in San Fransisco, you’re going to have much different results than if everyone you polled was from Dallas. Or if there are certain types of people that are more likely to respond. If ClintonNewsNetwork.com runs a poll, people viewing the site are going to do the poll, whereas people who aren’t mentally damaged won’t be viewing that site.
The biggest thing in politics I think, especially recently, is polling can create conflict (kinda). Another problem with polling, at least with politics, is a possible negative social stigma when answering truthfully, so people may lie so they don’t have to deal with the confrontation. I don’t remember the guy’s name, but he’s a really fat neck beard, hard core liberal I think, who mentioned this before the election. When someone says “I support Trump” and these mentally retarded people attack you and say, “Wow you’re a racist!!”, well.....if you’re wondering why the polls aren’t going to be accurate, that’s a pretty good hint as to why.
A few months before the election I was meeting up with someone, I think she was the sister of one of my acquaintances/friends. I didn’t mention anything political, voting, anything like that, and all of a sudden she’s going off on this pro-Clinton tirade....which was pretty bad because it was stupid stuff like “I believe in her” or “She knows what she’s doing!” or “She’s what this country needs” and other nonsense like that (I mean, at least say something with substance, ffs). Then she went off on how Trump is a racist and rapist and homophobic and every other thing in the book. Then she asks me who I’m voting for. Uhhhh, you gotta be crazy if you think I’m about to get involved in some argument with this crazy witch of a woman, when all I want to do is eat my pizza in peace and chill.
I saw people posting stuff on Facebook saying they support Trump....then psychotic people responding, calling the person a racist, xenophobic, bigoted, and others just saying they’ll delete them off their friends list. Damn, holy crap, people need to learn to relax and for as much “acceptance” as they pretend to preach, they do very little accepting. Just remember: 50% of people are stupider than half the population.
Quote: aceofspadesIt is admissible evidence
And, do you not think that Perez Hilton speaks for a majority of the Elite Left?
Uhhh, no.
Also, "Elite Left." LOL
Quote: wellwellwellKEEP AMERICA GREAT
TRUMP 2020 Campaign Slogan
Universal Studios trademarked "Keep America Great" in 2016 and used it as the tagline for their violent horror film, The Purge: Election Year.
Donald may have to try again.
In Hollywood most films are prescreened and polled. Plenty of films had screening results showing it was destined to be a hit and then it tanked at the BO (Black Sunday 1977 comes to mind)
Polling is not an exact science
EB and RS as Hollywood execs: "Man no more prescreenings. Didnt show us good results for Black Sunday. Got it wrong once never use them again"
Sorry guys but polls cant be so easily discounted (especially when the popular vote actually did win for HRC. I dont remember seeing any polling of electoral college people)
Now perhaps future polling can take into account electoral colleges and gerrymandering (the real reason trump won) there is always room to improve methodology its most likely someone is working on it right now.
They predicted Trump loses most of those swing states--- Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,etc... The fact that they were wrong on so many of them means to me that their methodology was more likely wrong than right.
I believe that many Trump supporters just didn't want to be labeled as a Trump supporter, and didn't feel comfortable with the anonymity a poll supposedly offers. There must have been a small number, but not zero, that just didn't want a woman president but wouldn't share that with Mr. Pollster.
I think that if a lie detector was used by pollsters Trump would get a much higher approval rating than he is getting now. Probably will be labeled 'the Trump effect' in future classes on polling.
Quote: SOOPOODarkoz- are you saying the pollsters didn't take into account the electoral college when making their predictions? Are you serious?
They predicted Trump loses most of those swing states--- Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,etc... The fact that they were wrong on so many of them means to me that their methodology was more likely wrong than right.
I believe that many Trump supporters just didn't want to be labeled as a Trump supporter, and didn't feel comfortable with the anonymity a poll supposedly offers. There must have been a small number, but not zero, that just didn't want a woman president but wouldn't share that with Mr. Pollster.
I think that if a lie detector was used by pollsters Trump would get a much higher approval rating than he is getting now. Probably will be labeled 'the Trump effect' in future classes on polling.
What im saying is one fluke poll gone wrong (trumps election) is not indicative of bad methodology although there is probably room for improvement which is almost certainly happening so future polls are even more accurate
So pointing to trump polling in 2016 will do no good. The polls are probably closer than you wish to accept
The Trump Effect? Lying? Lol yeah maybe people follow their leader. Trump lies why not his supporters
Quote: darkozBashing polling results due to one failure is so ridiculous
In Hollywood most films are prescreened and polled. Plenty of films had screening results showing it was destined to be a hit and then it tanked at the BO (Black Sunday 1977 comes to mind)
Polling is not an exact science
EB and RS as Hollywood execs: "Man no more prescreenings. Didnt show us good results for Black Sunday. Got it wrong once never use them again"
Sorry guys but polls cant be so easily discounted (especially when the popular vote actually did win for HRC. I dont remember seeing any polling of electoral college people)
Now perhaps future polling can take into account electoral colleges and gerrymandering (the real reason trump won) there is always room to improve methodology its most likely someone is working on it right now.
Uhh...what are you talking about????
I didn't say all polls were bad. I said if there's negative societal pressure against your view and you're going to see backlash, you probably aren't going to be super likely to tell the poller your side.
I really hope you're joking about the pollers not taking into account the electoral college.
Quote: RSUhh...what are you talking about????
I didn't say all polls were bad. I said if there's negative societal pressure against your view and you're going to see backlash, you probably aren't going to be super likely to tell the poller your side.
I really hope you're joking about the pollers not taking into account the electoral college.
What i said is they are not polling the electoral college. They are polling regular voters. Im sure they take the EC into account
There was an organized and deliberate effort to lie to pollsters by Trump supporters. Not all of them, but enough. The polls started from an assumption of honesty, and got a harsh lesson in manipulation.
The deliberate part was motivated in part by social unacceptability. But also to disguise how close things were, so that people would think it didn't matter if they voted, and too many didn't, because it seemed a foregone conclusion she would win.
The other, which some polls attempted to measure, but most didn't, was the enthusiasm gap, either for the preferred candidate, or as a protest vote against the other one. A lot of people felt no.sense of urgency to vote, and didn't like Hillary enough to do it anyway, though if someone had put a ballot in their hand, they would have chosen her . In Trump's case, a LOT of people either held their nose and voted for him as a Republican, or voted against Hillary without caring that it was Trump, just to vote against her.
Be interesting to see if any lessons were learned in the next one, by either party, or by the pollsters.
Quote: darkozWhat im saying is one fluke poll gone wrong (trumps election) is not indicative of bad methodology although there is probably room for improvement which is almost certainly happening so future polls are even more accurate
So pointing to trump polling in 2016 will do no good. The polls are probably closer than you wish to accept
The Trump Effect? Lying? Lol yeah maybe people follow their leader. Trump lies why not his supporters
You're....you're not listening. Sigh.
It's not about the methodology. It's that people don't want to give their answer and be labeled a "racist" or whatever other name in the book the dems make up about us. I remember back in '08 and my friends and I would talk about who we want to see for the next president, I'd hear people say they support Obama because he's black. Some said they support Hillary because she's a woman. Or we need change -- president has always been a white male! Then I'd say I wanted McCain or Romney to win because (I don't remember now). Sure as sh**, I'd get the "You're just want him to win because he's white! You just want him to win because he's not a woman! Racist and misogynistic!"
So yeah, when people turn batspit crazy because you say which candidate you're supporting or voting for....well, it kinda makes for a situation where I'd rather say, "Eh, I don't know who I'm voting for" or something like that.
It's amazing how Obama could get so much public support simply because he's black and label those who don't support him as a racist. Or how Hillary (booo!) can get so much support because she's a woman and label those who don't support her misogynistic. And that it's "perfectly acceptable" in our society to vote for these people based on their skin color or their gender. Granted, I'm not saying that's the only reason anyone voted for them or that those reasons make up a large chunk of why people voted for them....just amazing that society as a whole doesn't bat an eye when that's the reason someone gives for supporting said candidate.
Quote: darkozWhat i said is they are not polling the electoral college. They are polling regular voters. Im sure they take the EC into account
Why would they poll the electoral college? I'm not some political buff so correct me if I'm wrong (pretty sure I'm not) -- the popular vote of a state dictates whom the representatives of that state are supposed to vote for.
Pollsters poll the people in each state. They figure how likely it is for one candidate to win that state vs the other candidate (or other candidates, earlier on). They do the math and figure, based on the polls, who is more likely to win. That's all good and valid. That's not the pollsters fault. But that also doesn't mean that future polls are going to be accurate, if they're on a subject where "The Trump Effect" may take place.
The problem arises when the political climate is so far deteriorated that people don't feel like answering truthfully to the pollsters. This has been explained ad nauseam in this thread as well as all over the internet.
Quote: beachbumbabs
There was an organized and deliberate effort to lie to pollsters by Trump supporters. Not all of them, but enough. The polls started from an assumption of honesty, and got a harsh lesson in manipulation.
And it worked beautifully! But I am still trying to cash my check as that Russian bank has been hard to cash.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd it worked beautifully! But I am still trying to cash my check as that Russian bank has been hard to cash.
I KNEW IT!!!
:)))
Quote: RSYou're....you're not listening. Sigh.
It's not about the methodology. It's that people don't want to give their answer and be labeled a "racist" or whatever other name in the book the dems make up about us. I remember back in '08 and my friends and I would talk about who we want to see for the next president, I'd hear people say they support Obama because he's black. Some said they support Hillary because she's a woman. Or we need change -- president has always been a white male! Then I'd say I wanted McCain or Romney to win because (I don't remember now). Sure as sh**, I'd get the "You're just want him to win because he's white! You just want him to win because he's not a woman! Racist and misogynistic!"
So yeah, when people turn batspit crazy because you say which candidate you're supporting or voting for....well, it kinda makes for a situation where I'd rather say, "Eh, I don't know who I'm voting for" or something like that.
It's amazing how Obama could get so much public support simply because he's black and label those who don't support him as a racist. Or how Hillary (booo!) can get so much support because she's a woman and label those who don't support her misogynistic. And that it's "perfectly acceptable" in our society to vote for these people based on their skin color or their gender. Granted, I'm not saying that's the only reason anyone voted for them or that those reasons make up a large chunk of why people voted for them....just amazing that society as a whole doesn't bat an eye when that's the reason someone gives for supporting said candidate.
Why would they poll the electoral college? I'm not some political buff so correct me if I'm wrong (pretty sure I'm not) -- the popular vote of a state dictates whom the representatives of that state are supposed to vote for.
Pollsters poll the people in each state. They figure how likely it is for one candidate to win that state vs the other candidate (or other candidates, earlier on). They do the math and figure, based on the polls, who is more likely to win. That's all good and valid. That's not the pollsters fault. But that also doesn't mean that future polls are going to be accurate, if they're on a subject where "The Trump Effect" may take place.
The problem arises when the political climate is so far deteriorated that people don't feel like answering truthfully to the pollsters. This has been explained ad nauseam in this thread as well as all over the internet.
I actually agree with most of this post although its sad (trump term) that lying is a Trump Effect
I thought polls were usually held anonymous or am I wrong? Why would an anonymous pollee feel the need to lie?
If pollers were berating the pollees then methodology is certainly suspect. I dont see that happening though
Quote: aceofspades
Have there ever been polls so completely wrong as they were prior to the 2016 election?
How can a poll be "wrong?" That doesn't even make any sense....
Polls by definition are nothing but an aggregate of responses to questions.
Let's say I ask ten people what color the sky is, and four of them say "red." So, I report "Four in 10 people say the sky is red." Is that poll "wrong?" No, of course not. The PEOPLE were wrong, but the poll is simply presenting the information. Specifically with the election, let's say I ask 10 people who they think will win the election, and nine of them say "I think Hillary will win." So, I report "90% of respondents think Hillary will win." Obviously, Trump won. But what exactly is "wrong" about my poll? 90% of the people I polled DID think that Hillary would win. They just all happen to be wrong. But my poll wasn't.
I'm just continually amazed that in a GAMBLING forum no less, there are so many people here who don't understand the basic math, statistics, and probabilities that are involved in polls.
Quote: TigerWuHow can a poll be "wrong?" That doesn't even make any sense....
Polls by definition are nothing but an aggregate of responses to questions.
Let's say I ask ten people what color the sky is, and four of them say "red." So, I report "Four in 10 people say the sky is red." Is that poll "wrong?" No, of course not. The PEOPLE were wrong, but the poll is simply presenting the information. Specifically with the election, let's say I ask 10 people who they think will win the election, and nine of them say "I think Hillary will win." So, I report "90% of respondents think Hillary will win." Obviously, Trump won. But what exactly is "wrong" about my poll? 90% of the people I polled DID think that Hillary would win. They just all happen to be wrong. But my poll wasn't.
I'm just continually amazed that in a GAMBLING forum no less, there are so many people here who don't understand the basic math, statistics, and probabilities that are involved in polls.
Totally agree
Take Nate Silver
He never says this person or that person will win
He posts probabilities based on polls
Quote: aceofspadesIt is admissible evidence
And, do you not think that Perez Hilton speaks for a majority of the Elite Left?
Quote: ams288Uhhh, no.
Also, "Elite Left." LOL
I can picture AOS in court
Your honor, opposing counsels client is a liberal. Therefore I am entering into the record all of Perez Hiltons tweets because he speaks for opposing counsels client
The Judge - WTF
ROTFL
Quote: terapinedQuote: aceofspadesQuote: terapinedQuote: aceofspadesThe Left doing their best 1984 doublespeak impression:
Shouldn't we all be free thinkers?
Absolutely
Perez Hilton is not the Left.
I can pick out crazies on the right and say they they represent the right
But its meaningless just as your post is meaningless
Who listens to Perez. Please. He's a publicity whore
I expect something much better then the above from a lawyer
Do you use twitter posts from kooks on internet to prove your case in court lol
It is admissible evidence
And, do you not think that Perez Hilton speaks for a majority of the Elite Left?
Should I quote Maxine Waters instead when it comes to the views of the Left - she is a Congressman, after all
You use Perez Hilton twitter post in your court cases?
weird
Perez Hilton speaks for himself
AOS speaks for himself
I speak for myself
Trump Speaks for himself
Alex Jones, "who speaks for the right" says Newtown is fake
With your false logic, all conservatives think Newtown is fake
Are you really a lawyer?
I play one on tv.
Damn, this guy is good. I can absolutely understand why the righties are trying so hard to smear him. Too bad for them it isn't working at all....
Quote: ams288Uhhh, no.
Also, "Elite Left." LOL
Uhhh, yes.
Quote: terapinedI can picture AOS in court
Your honor, opposing counsels client is a liberal. Therefore I am entering into the record all of Perez Hiltons tweets because he speaks for opposing counsels client
The Judge - WTF
ROTFL
What are you going on about?
I said the Tweet would be admissible in Court as it is a posting by a public figure and can be authenticated as such - please don't take what I said out of context
Quote: ams288
Damn, this guy is good. I can absolutely understand why the righties are trying so hard to smear him. Too bad for them it isn't working at all....
The Left pinning their hopes to a lawyer who had his client violate a non-disclosure agreement
Quote: beachbumbabsI said he didn't have investigator access. But he was admitted to the case with standing because of the NDA being negotiated by him and the money being paid by him
What that means in practical terms I'm not pretending to know, but he's being allowed to see and hear some things that we aren't. That's all I'm saying.
It was a ruling the judge made that Friday maybe a month ago that let him in there when they revealed who Cohen's 3 clients were.Quote: aceofspadesBabs - do you have a link to this Court order giving him "standing" (it would be Stormy that would need standing as the client, not Avenatti as the attorney) -- I am not doubting that you read this but something is awfully fishy about what you are saying and I want to read the actual Court order - or at least, an article, detailing what you are saying - thanks :)
Still waiting...
Quote: aceofspadesThe Left pinning their hopes to a lawyer who had his client violate a non-disclosure agreement
The Right not caring about investigating any serious crimes that may have been committed simply because someone has an "R" next to their name.
You ought to be celebrating this guy. You want the swamp drained or what?
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: ams288
Damn, this guy is good. I can absolutely understand why the righties are trying so hard to smear him. Too bad for them it isn't working at all....
The Left pinning their hopes to a lawyer who had his client violate a non-disclosure agreement
Trump talked about it first by denying any knowledge of a payment or any relationship with stormy daniels (making the contract null if it had nothing to do with the donald)
Then said he knew al about it. Once one party begins talking openly most non-disclosure agreements become null and void since the one party is now disclosing openly
Quote: aceofspadesThe Left pinning their hopes to a lawyer who had his client violate a non-disclosure agreement
"Pinning their hopes" is a strange term to use here.
The only thing I'm "pinning my hopes" to in regards to Avenatti is that he keeps being a pain in the ass for Donald and Cohen.
Am I "pinning my hopes" to him getting Donald impeached or something? Nah.
As for the NDA, Avenatti had nothing to do with it. It was a different lawyer who got Stormy to sign it. And that lawyer was most likely working with Cohen behind Stormy's back.
Quote: terapined
I can picture AOS in court
Your honor, opposing counsels client is a liberal. Therefore I am entering into the record all of Perez Hiltons tweets because he speaks for opposing counsels client
The Judge - WTF
ROTFL
Quote: aceofspadesWhat are you going on about?
this
Quote: aceofspades
And, do you not think that Perez Hilton speaks for a majority of the Elite Left?
Perez Hilton does not speak for a majority of the elite left
Perez Hilton does not speak for me
Perez Hilton does not speak for any liberal that you oppose in court
reality
Perez Hilton is quite controversial. Many gays are against this gay.
I lean left and no way would I listen to that media whore
Quote: terapinedPerez Hilton does not speak for a majority of the elite left
Perez Hilton does not speak for me
Perez Hilton does not speak for any liberal that you oppose in court
You forgot the most important one:
Perez Hilton hasn't been relevant in almost a decade.
How did he even get brought up in this thread?? Haha....
Sarah Palin showing some support for the B.O.R. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-11/sarah-palin-speaks-out-julian-assange-after-ecuadorian-embassy-cuts-phone-callsQuote: TigerWuThe Right not caring about investigating any serious crimes that may have been committed simply because someone has an "R" next to their name.
Bravo Sarah
Quote: aceofspades
The Left pinning their hopes to a lawyer who had his client violate a non-disclosure agreement
Not pinning my hopes on anything
Just watching a case as it unfolds
Take Mueller
Not pinning my hopes on anything because he may not have anything
I don't have the foggiest idea what Mueller has.
I am waiting to hear the evidence and charges just like everyone else.
I simply support all investigations in Washington DC
Take Benghazi. I supported that investigation even though I am a Lib because I don't trust power.
Nothing to pin hopes on.
After an investigation, whatever happens, happens
Quote: petroglyphSarah Palin showing some support for the B.O.R. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-11/sarah-palin-speaks-out-julian-assange-after-ecuadorian-embassy-cuts-phone-calls
Bravo Sarah
The Bill of Rights does not apply to Australians who are holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Quote: TigerWuYou forgot the most important one:
Perez Hilton hasn't been relevant in almost a decade.
How did he even get brought up in this thread?? Haha....
I don't get it either
hmm
Why not go with somebody just as Insignificant such as Pee Wee Herman
lol
Quote: aceofspadesStill waiting...
Quote: aceofspadesI play one on tv.
He really does. I've seen Ace on FOX,
CNN, NBC. He's the go to lawyer
expert on high profile divorce cases.
is why he lost in 08. Yeah, that's the reason,
RINO. Snicker, guffaw.
Sarah saved his ass and gave his pitiful campaign
some hope. He's why I voted for Obama in 08,
and I loathed Rev Wright's little protege even
then.
Quote: EvenBobMcCain is now whining that Sarah Palin
is why he lost in 08. Yeah, that's the reason,
RINO. Snicker, guffaw.
Sarah saved his ass and gave his pitiful campaign
some hope. He's why I voted for Obama in 08,
and I loathed Rev Wright's little protege even
then.
She gave his campaign energy and personality. So much so that lefties were comparing her to Obama, not McCain. Meanwhile he was using Steve Lombardi as his inspiration.
Hey, John, when your opponent says you do not believe women should be paid the same as men and you stand there like a statue, well, kind of unmanly to blame your VP.
Never liked McCain, never will.
