Don't listen to the liberal MSM: Trump crushed Hillary at the debates.

originally posted by: Gazrok

They brainwashing occurs when thinking your vote counts period. No reason to go on the attack because someone has a sense of morality and doesn't want to vote for these two imbeciles they gave us.

It counts for SOMETHING, just very little. If the Electoral votes different greatly from the popular vote, in a non-close election...then it would be MUCH harder to ignore what the electors said.

It counts for letting them know that they still have you right where they want you. The electoral college is the only thing that matters when it comes to the next president. They've voted in the past for candidates who received less popular vote. Four times I believe. They choose the winner.

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: imthegoat

Apparently you've never seen Deliverance, or you would have picked up on the reference.

Grambler didn't insinuate it, he simply understood the reference that MongolianPaellaFish made.


As for the debate at hand. Hillary was the clear "winner", but still said nothing that would convince me to vote for her.

I've seen deliverance. Just because someone quoted a movie title doesn't mean they were insinuating rape. Could very well be meant as "making SoandSo their bi***." But I digress, because either way it's a ridiculous argument.

a reply to: imthegoat

No attack, just statements.

I also live in reality and know that your voice and your vote makes a difference.

Maybe you don't realize it but plenty of things are addressed and done in this country based on small amounts of people diligently pursuing their cause, and accumulating votes or even signatures.

One example, I think you'll agree, votes have counted when it comes to Marijuana legalization.

Thinking voting doesn't count is a cop out.

It's an excuse for you not to risk putting your support behind someone because of how it might make you look.

I hate to break it to you but no one is perfect. Everyone comes with flaws. You have to take the good with the bad no matter who you elect.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

And as anyone in statistical analysis would tell you, there are several things wrong with them.

1. Sample Size. There are over 100 million Democrates AND Republicans. All of these polls are less than 1% our population. It doesn't take account for location or anything, just subscribers. The odds of Party'd individuals subscribing to one format over another isn't taken into account at all.

2. Cross analysis, even with a Sample Size of 1 million, most of these polls have HUGE discrepancy in percentage. This by anyone that cared about statistics is a huge upset, as consistency is what creates a Trend(What they would look for in a Poll).

When one Poll shows 19% for Clinton, and another shows 45%, it can almost be taken as Fact none of these polls can be combined for any form of accuracy or interpretation, nor do they show much individual impression outside of anything other than subscribers to those outlets. Obviously Drudge is going to have a 19% approval rating of Clinton, but that gives no information to reality as to where they stand officially with the country.

With any stance other than these sites use it as a mass media campaign for advertising, and they're completely inaccurate, you'd be a loon.

a reply to: Dr UAE

That's a weak excuse. Hillary will win because Trump is an inferior candidate. Just as Obama won because Romney & McCain were simply inferior candidates.

If Hillary's only winning because she's a woman, why didn't Carly Fiorina or Jill Stein get the same enthusiasm that Hillary is getting? Both of those women were running for President this same election cycle, and Stein is still running & will be on the ballot. And if Obama only won because he was black, why didn't Herman Cain or Ben Carson get the same push? After all, Pres Obama is only half "black" while Cain & Carson are more "black". Oh that's right, it's because the majority of voters feel that they are also inferior candidates.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Bloodydagger

And as anyone in statistical analysis would tell you, there are several things wrong with them.

1. Sample Size. There are over 100 million Democrates AND Republicans. All of these polls are less that 1% our population. It doesn't take account for location or anything, just subscribers. The odds of Party'd individuals subscribing to one format over another isn't taken into account at all.

2. Cross analysis, even with a Sample Size of 1 million, most of these polls have HUGE discrepancy in percentage. This by anyone that cared about statistics is a huge upset, as consistency is what creates a Trend(What they would look for in a Poll).

When one Poll shows 19% for Clinton, and another shows 45%, it can almost be taken as Fact none of these polls can be combined for any form of accuracy or interpretation, nor do they show much individual impression outside of anything other than subscribers to those outlets. Obviously Drudge is going to have a 19% approval rating of Clinton, but that gives no information to reality as to where they stand officially with the country.

With any stance other than these sites use it as a mass media campaign for advertising, and they're completely inaccurate, you'd be a loon.

But if these polls were going the other way and saying Hillary was winning in them, you'd be happy and refuting anyone who said otherwise.

See how that works?

a reply to: olaru12

It tells me that he has higher standards for himself than do others. In his head he didn't win. Conjecture.

The saddest part of the whole debate, the whole race actually, is that I could have found a dozen liberals and a dozen conservatives that are regulars on ATS that could have better represented their respective camps than either of the nominees did.

It's very discouraging that this is what we've been given to choose from.

Whichever way a person leans, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can get excited about either one of them.

originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
a reply to: imthegoat

No attack, just statements.

I also live in reality and know that your voice and your vote makes a difference.

Maybe you don't realize it but plenty of things are addressed and done in this country based on small amounts of people diligently pursuing their cause, and accumulating votes or even signatures.

One example, I think you'll agree, votes have counted when it comes to Marijuana legalization.

Thinking voting doesn't count is a cop out.

It's an excuse for you not to risk putting your support behind someone because of how it might make you look.

I hate to break it to you but no one is perfect. Everyone comes with flaws. You have to take the good with the bad no matter who you elect.

If it makes you feel better -- votes don't count on a federal level. Otherwise the petitions (although not exactly the same) would hold more merit to the White House.

Also note that Marijuana is still a scheduled 1 drug on the federal level.

Not voting isn't a cop out for me. The last time I supported a candidate he was blatantly ran over by disingenuous politicians and forced out of the race. For many of us, that election was an eye opener. They change the rules at their will. The two major parties are in fear of any alternative ideologies. I refuse to vote Democrat or Republican because this country, millions of lives, have been screwed over for far too long. Maybe voting third party doesn't count for you. Maybe you have a different perspective, and I can respect that, but saying those voting third party are copping out because we refuse to take responsibility is nonsense.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Bloodydagger

And as anyone in statistical analysis would tell you, there are several things wrong with them.

1. Sample Size. There are over 100 million Democrates AND Republicans. All of these polls are less that 1% our population. It doesn't take account for location or anything, just subscribers. The odds of Party'd individuals subscribing to one format over another isn't taken into account at all.

2. Cross analysis, even with a Sample Size of 1 million, most of these polls have HUGE discrepancy in percentage. This by anyone that cared about statistics is a huge upset, as consistency is what creates a Trend(What they would look for in a Poll).

When one Poll shows 19% for Clinton, and another shows 45%, it can almost be taken as Fact none of these polls can be combined for any form of accuracy or interpretation, nor do they show much individual impression outside of anything other than subscribers to those outlets. Obviously Drudge is going to have a 19% approval rating of Clinton, but that gives no information to reality as to where they stand officially with the country.

With any stance other than these sites use it as a mass media campaign for advertising, and they're completely inaccurate, you'd be a loon.

But if these polls were going the other way and saying Hillary was winning in them, you'd be happy and refuting anyone who said otherwise.

See how that works?

Do I see how you facelessly support your narrative and call me a Hillary supporter when I'm not?

If you read anything about what happened in Colorado you'd know I support Trump. Or at least not Hillary. I've started several Anti-Hillary campaigns here.

I just don't let my political affiliation cloud my judgement. Only morons do that.

Most people that call themselves Republican disgust me still. Democrats I find less disgusting even though they're normally wrong.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
But if these polls were going the other way and saying Hillary was winning in them, you'd be happy and refuting anyone who said otherwise.

See how that works?

How what works? Your lack of critical thinking, or your poor prognostication skills?

I think he already spelled it out pretty clearly with...

originally posted by: imjack

Online Polls never work, ever.

Spin that.

It amazes me that you're still struggling so hard with such a simple concept, Bloodydagger.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Dr UAE

That's a weak excuse. Hillary will win because Trump is an inferior candidate. Just as Obama won because Romney & McCain were simply inferior candidates.

If Hillary's only winning because she's a woman, why didn't Carly Fiorina or Jill Stein get the same enthusiasm that Hillary is getting? Both of those women were running for President this same election cycle, and Stein is still running & will be on the ballot. And if Obama only won because he was black, why didn't Herman Cain or Ben Carson get the same push? After all, Pres Obama is only half "black" while Cain & Carson are more "black". Oh that's right, it's because the majority of voters feel that they are also inferior candidates.

To be fair with his assumption -- look at the response of the general hillary supporter when they're asked the reason that they're voting for her. The most common, and first, response is because she is a woman. Even in 2008, when Obama first ran, I asked a lot of my friends and co-workers (white, black, latino) why they were voting for Obama. What was the general response you ask? "Because he's black! I want to be a part of history."

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
But if these polls were going the other way and saying Hillary was winning in them, you'd be happy and refuting anyone who said otherwise.

See how that works?

How what works? Your lack of critical thinking, and poor prognostication skills?

I think he already spelled it out pretty clearly with...

originally posted by: imjack

Online Polls never work, ever.

Spin that.

It amazes me that you're still struggling so hard with such a simple concept.

Don't play stupid. You know how the game works. If the polls are in your favor, you support the results. If the polls are not in your favor, you conjure up stuff to fit your narrative. Its always been that way.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
But if these polls were going the other way and saying Hillary was winning in them, you'd be happy and refuting anyone who said otherwise.

See how that works?

How what works? Your lack of critical thinking, and poor prognostication skills?

I think he already spelled it out pretty clearly with...

originally posted by: imjack

Online Polls never work, ever.

Spin that.

It amazes me that you're still struggling so hard with such a simple concept.

Don't play stupid. You know how the game works. If the polls are in your favor, you support the results. If the polls are not in your favor, you conjure up stuff to fit your narrative. Its always been that way.

Yes. That's what Trumpeteers do. Google is a wonderful tool.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Don't play stupid. You know how the game works. If the polls are in your favor, you support the results. If the polls are not in your favor, you conjure up stuff to fit your narrative. Its always been that way.

Maybe that's the way it works for you, but that's not the way it works for those who possess critical thinking skills, or anyone who understands online polls.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Dr UAE

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: imjack

The issue is the moderator was biased in favor of Clinton. But go on and on and on with your rant.

even i as a none American noticed it
let's face it , as I said before and will say it again
when it was the time for a black president Obama won it and now it's the time for a woman to win it and mark words she will win it , you might not like what I predict after that but here goes the next will be a gay or a transgendere

What are you really saying? You need to check yourself.

I get a full check up every now and then
what's your point, enlighten me

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
But if these polls were going the other way and saying Hillary was winning in them, you'd be happy and refuting anyone who said otherwise.

See how that works?

How what works? Your lack of critical thinking, and poor prognostication skills?

I think he already spelled it out pretty clearly with...

originally posted by: imjack

Online Polls never work, ever.

Spin that.

It amazes me that you're still struggling so hard with such a simple concept.

Don't play stupid. You know how the game works. If the polls are in your favor, you support the results. If the polls are not in your favor, you conjure up stuff to fit your narrative. Its always been that way.

For idiot kids, that even know at the core of what they're doing is dishonest.

[snipped]

And I guarantee you that if the roles were reversed and this was Hillary in those polls, that we'd see a similar thread with the Hillary supporters parading the polls around.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
And I guarantee you that if the roles were reversed and this was Hillary in those polls, that we'd see a similar thread with the Hillary supporters parading the polls around.

Well that's to be agreeable, whats stupid is you picked a fight with the same people who would fight with said Hillary supporters over the polls being inaccurate.

We don't give a # what poll it is, anyone with an internet-brain knows they are faulty REGARDLESS of side.

You don't think it's just as fun cutting down Hillary supporters?

I think you've misunderstood this place.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
And I guarantee you that if the roles were reversed and this was Hillary in those polls, that we'd see a similar thread with the Hillary supporters parading the polls around.

That's called "transference".