General US Politics

[Tryhard]

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

what the hell, is this my internet connection?  I swear I only clicked once.

There's an issue with posting and has been for a while on the forums - often posts are repeated accidentally.

[Lushen]

10 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

condolences. people shouldn't have to deal with that because of their political leanings. 

Thanks.  To be fair, I have an Uncle who tells people on facebook that Obama is gay and Michelle is a transgender.  Their kids are, of course, adopted by some celebrity (can't remember who).  Point being, the facebook nonsense is on both sides.  I think it's more common from liberals to conservatives, but its definitely on both sides.

1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

There's an issue with posting and has been for a while on the forums - often posts are repeated accidentally.

Ah, I'll admit there's been a few times where I hit send and it loads for a while and after finding a typo I try to fix it and hit send again.  I thought that was what was causing it.  Must be a thing with long posts.

[Comet]

last i heard most republicans don't like Trump so that would explain under the 20% approval rating. snagging votes in a mudslinging election is no indicator of how much faith people actually have in the given politician (so, Trump).

[Lord Raven]

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

I stopped talking about the random vs standard deviation because you were talking about standard deviation, i corrected you saying I think you're talking about random deviation, then you seemed to make a post saying exactly what I was saying about it and I didn't know how to respond to someone who was arguing with me by saying exactly what I was saying.  If you're intention was to disagree with me on std vs random, I hadn't realized.

I know exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't think you were saying what I was saying.

Quote

Gallup polls are dominantly performed through telephone calls, which I tire of talking about.

You keep fucking saying that Republicans don't respond to phone polls with no basis in fact. You keep not fucking contradicting their methodology. Stop saying this stupid bullshit and actually give me the facts, based on statistics or whatever the hell. You're not saying anything worthwhile by repeating "Republicans are less likely to answer telephones, I can tell because Hillary Clinton lost!"

You know what the polls predicted completely correctly? The majority of the presidential elections and a bunch of special interest elections before this one. This one was off in some of the wrong states, and there was random error associated with Trump in a few states, but sampling bias was not an issue since Clinton's win percentages were within the standard error (and in some cases, on-point, and on national polls completely on-point) of their methodology (ie, the instrumental error) whereas Trump's was random error that they are trying to reconcile to fix their methodology. And even then, percentages to win shifted on polling aggregates post-Comey's revelations, so it's not the polls' fault that you're not paying attention to more than a few sources. I've pointed out other things about districts which you continue to ignore. Why do you continue to ignore this?

So no, polling isn't perfect, but it's not null and void like you continue to claim it is (and same with other Trumpettes -- because you literally sound like one regardless of where your vote went), but you cannot accuse the polls of being dead wrong because of one instance, because at this point they're taking a second look at the methodology. The fuck, do you think Classical Mechanics is bullshit because Quantum Mechanics exists? Or do you just view it as a model that can be improved? Because signs are pointing to the latter, not the former.

Were Democrats not responding to phone surveys much during the Bush, Obama, or Clinton years either? Your logic makes no sense and it is, in no way, congruent with every other sample space. You have every right to criticize a poll with faulty methodology, but you've yet to actually criticize or mention the methodology I've linked to you. Go through it and point out the faults, otherwise you're purposely ignoring points.

Quote

As for the 'shit about flaws in my logic', if I didn't respond its because I didn't really know what you were trying to say.

Then ask. Are you trying to learn or are you trying to be correct?

Quote

And I don't know if you ignored anything I said or not, but considering I've had to say the same thing over and over again for the last few hours, I don't think you've been listening attentively.

I damn well have been.

Quote

I tried to follow the democrats during this election, but unlike previous years both the republican and democrats have acted like chickens running around with its head cut off during this election.  Both were pointing fingers, crying wolf, and screaming nonsense I question the sanity of anyone who has actually succeeded in following both parties.  I watched both CNN and Fox News, so I think I got samples of both parties nonsense.

You didn't watch closely enough, clearly. You're getting the platforms wrong already.

Quote

Anyways, Rezzy and some others have been talking about some health care stuff, and I'm finding the discussion interesting to listen to.  I feel like our back and forth arguments aren't really doing either of us a favor, and I think I've said everything I wanted to throw out there.  Regardless, this was a nice discussion, but I think it's gone on long enough for a forum. :D

You didn't respond to any healthcare stuff in the past. This argument was annoying. You ignored a lot of points, and you're ignoring healthcare points anyway. I don't think I trust you to have any sort of worthwhile discussion here.

Yeah sorry for going back on my ultimatum, but man I felt i had to.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lord Raven

[euklyd]

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

Gallup polls are dominantly performed through telephone calls, which I tire of talking about.

19 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

You keep fucking saying that Republicans don't respond to phone polls with no basis in fact. You keep not fucking contradicting their methodology. Stop saying this stupid bullshit and actually give me the facts, based on statistics or whatever the hell. You're not saying anything worthwhile by repeating "Republicans are less likely to answer telephones, I can tell because Hillary Clinton lost!"

Why the fuck are you guys still fucking talking about telephone surveys and random statistical variation? Jesus Christ.

It's completely obvious that the Russians hacked the voting machines; you can tell because Trump won (this is the real reason the polls were all wrong, btw, idk what those ivory tower academics like @Lord Raven are going on about).

Similarly, because Trump won in this way, you can deduce that he's colluding with the Russians — which is why they hacked the voting machines in the first place.

[Phoenix Wright]

14 minutes ago, Euklyd said:

Why the fuck are you guys still fucking talking about telephone surveys and random statistical variation? Jesus Christ.

It's completely obvious that the Russians hacked the voting machines; you can tell because Trump won (this is the real reason the polls were all wrong, btw, idk what those ivory tower academics like @Lord Raven are going on about).

Similarly, because Trump won in this way, you can deduce that he's colluding with the Russians — which is why they hacked the voting machines in the first place.

i cant tell if this is a shitpost or not.

if not, can you expand a bit on the obviousness of collusion and hacking?

Edited June 29, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Lord Raven]

11 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i cant tell if this is a shitpost or not.

if not, can you expand a bit on the obviousness of collusion and hacking?

it's a shitpost

look at the dude's logic here and compare

Quote

The issue is, it seems Republicans are less likely to answer telephone surveys than democrats.  That's the only logical explanation why they were so wrong (by a longshot).  Thus, telephone surveys are bogus.

his source?

Quote

My source was the fact that Clinton lost the election.

the point was that the logic was bogus and nonsensical, and the same kind of logic (A => B therefore C => D) was being applied to make an equally absurd point that was meant to target the other side

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lord Raven

[euklyd]

12 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i cant tell if this is a shitpost or not.

if not, can you expand a bit on the obviousness of collusion and hacking?

The fact that Trump won makes it clear that you can't trust the polls due to Russian hacking. Raven is going on and on about how the polls are fundamentally trustworthy, but I think that sort of denialism and intellectual dishonestly in an intellectual debate like this one is frankly quite dangerous to a democracy.

And unlike the baseless claims about not answering phone calls, this view has repeated evidence behind it, including frenzied media speculation and purported leaks about an FBI investigation!

EDIT: Fuckin' Raven, just because I deconstructed your pseudo-scientific propaganda doesn't mean I'm shitposting. Is your college education really so great that you need to resort to dismissing as trolls the people who point out the flaws in your arguments? smh fam

Edited June 29, 2017 by Euklyd

[Lushen]

You do realize that many states don't have their voting process connected to the internet, right?  

I didn't vote in the last election, so I'm not entirely sure how many still use paper, but I'm pretty sure many actually exclusively use paper still (not even electronics).  I'd love to learn how Russia hacked paper.  

As for the FBI involvement you cited, the only thing the FBI has explicitly stated is that no votes were changed.

I'm not going to comment on media speculation being a valid point...

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lushen

[euklyd]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

You do realize that many states don't have their voting process connected to the internet, right?  

I didn't vote in the last election, so I'm not entirely sure how many still use paper, but I'm pretty sure many actually exclusively use paper still (not even electronics).  I'd love to learn how Russia hacked paper.  

While those are good points, they nevertheless pale in the face of the compelling evidence that Trump won the election.

I myself do think it would be fascinating to learn the answers to questions; you never know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

[Lushen]

2 minutes ago, Euklyd said:

While those are good points, they nevertheless pale in the face of the compelling evidence that Trump won the election.

I too, have seen a ton of compelling evidence showing that Trump won the election.  I'm not going to cite this evidence without my tin foil hat, however.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lushen

[euklyd]

Just now, Lushen said:

I too, have seen a ton of compelling evidence showing that Trump won the election.

Then I'm not sure how you can deny the fact that the Russians engaged of widespread hacking of both electronic and paper ballots.

[Lushen]

 

8 minutes ago, Euklyd said:

Then I'm not sure how you can deny the fact that the Russians engaged of widespread hacking of both electronic and paper ballots.

Lol there's your answer @Phoenix Wright

Should have led with paper hacks.

edit:  The problem with forums is, some children would actually say this stuff 100% serious, lol.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lushen

[euklyd]

Only just saw your edit:

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

As for the FBI involvement you cited, the only thing the FBI has explicitly stated is that no votes were changed.

I'm not going to comment on media speculation being a valid point...

It's cool how you're willing to talk about how clearly republicans don't pick up their phones with no evidence, but use minor technicalities to dismiss my completely legitimate inferences backed up with infinitely more evidence.

Voting machine hacking is actually scarily possible, and there's frighteningly little regulation or oversight.

And of course both you and Raven immediately jump to dismissing people with contrary views to your own as mere trolls; are you sure you aren't also one of those ivory tower academics?

[Baldrick]

 

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 I'd love to learn how Russia hacked paper.  

4 minutes ago, Euklyd said:

I myself do think it would be fascinating to learn the answers to questions; you never know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I have it on good authority that they filled the pens used to vote with disappearing ink.

[Tryhard]

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

edit:  The problem with forums is, some children would actually say this stuff 100% serious, lol.

Yeah, it's not like the President of the United States and his supporters believes his opponent bussed in millions of illegal immigrants to prevent him from winning the popular vote or anything.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

3 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Yeah, it's not like the President of the United States and his supporters believes his opponent bussed in millions of illegal immigrants to prevent him from winning the popular vote or anything.

No, they were 'dead people'.

Nevertheless, there are confirmed reports of illegal immigrants and people voting a second time.  Not enough, but it's still a problem that needs to be solved before we point fingers at Russia where there's no confirmed reports. 

[Tryhard]

10 minutes ago, Lushen said:

No, they were 'dead people'.

Nevertheless, there are confirmed reports of illegal immigrants and people voting a second time.  Not enough, but it's still a problem that needs to be solved before we point fingers at Russia where there's no confirmed reports. 

Oh, that'll be good. Where are these "confirmed" reports?

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

“The following information comes straight from Pew Research, quote, ‘Approximately 24 million people — one out of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or significantly inaccurate.’ One in eight,” Trump said. “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals, right now, are listed as voters.’ Oh, that’s wonderful.”

“Well, if they’re gonna vote for me, we’ll think about it, right?” Trump joked. “But I have a feeling they’re not gonna vote for me. Of the 1.8 million, 1.8 million is voting for someone else.”

Trump accurately quoted from the report, “Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs and Upgrade.” But the report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems.

In fact, researchers say voter fraud involving ballots cast on behalf of deceased voters is rare.

“This issue of dead people voting is just not substantiated,” said Lorraine Minnite, a professor at Rutgers University and author of “The Myth of Voter Fraud.”

Edited June 29, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

9 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Oh, that'll be good. Where are these "confirmed" reports?

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

I said a few. I don't mean anywhere close to the amount President Trump talks about.  I don't think he even really believes that many are there, he just knows how to rile up his supporters. 

 

As for confirmed reports, is someone pleading guilty good enough for you?  You can pick your favorite news outlet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+spieles&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuipfPtePUAhWn7oMKHQeiBowQ_AUICigB

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

I mean, I don't think anyone was saying that voter fraud does not happen - as said by anyone who investigates these things, it is "very rare", but still happens. In fact, there was an example of a Trump supporter that voted twice.

Edit: Also, was that person actually able to vote with the people they tried to register? Seems like they were caught and jailed before they could actually vote (in August).

Trump said that he lost the popular vote by the millions of illegal immigrants or people "voting illegally". What you have to accept here is that he's either completely delusional (his ego can't take losing the popular vote) or lying. "To get his supporters riled up" is just appealing to conspiracy theories. 

From those two options, him saying that he won the "electoral college in a landslide", which isn't true, leads me to believe his ego can't take losing the popular vote.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

Trump only lost the popular vote because most big cities are both in blue states and/or are themselves very left. Why he can't concede the fact that he lost the popular vote just by virtue of Los Angeles, NYC, DC, and Boston is beyond me. I could come to terms with the fact that every Joe, Bob, and Dick could love me in Smalltown, USA, and that their city-slicker cousins do not. The fact that he cannot is telling.

[Lushen]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Edit: Also, was that person actually able to vote with the people they tried to register? Seems like they were caught and jailed before they could actually vote (in August).

His plea was that the Virginia Democratic Party was involved and essentially advised him on what to do.  The issue here is authorities didn't actually catch him.  Apparently one of his co-workers noticed him submitting the name of someone he knew of personally to be dead.  He called the police, who were completely unaware of what was going on at this time, and likely wouldn't have noticed.

I'm not trying to place blame on the Democratic Party, I didn't know about this story until I just googled voter fraud and it was one of the first things I saw.

It's also important to note this is not a new development.  Voter fraud goes back to 1800s where the kind of voter fraud Trump is referencing was probably actually true.  People would wear wigs and vote twice.  John Adams/Thomas Jefferson is the first one that comes to mind.  Even Kennedy vs Nixon was known to be pretty bad.

There may not be a ton of voter fraud currently, but what I was trying to say is instead of focusing on what Russia could have maybe but probably not done, we should focus on what's actually going on for sure and how we can stop it.

 

@Hylian Air ForceOne of the most popular reasons for why Trump lost the election, has to do with African American turnout.  If it was anywhere near what we saw during the Obama election, I think it would have been a lot closer race.  People had expected Trump to have a low turnout for female voters, but he actually had more female white voters than Clinton did.  I also think Clinton did a very bad job campaigning.  It's like she thought she was going to win so much she just decided to not do any rallies, debates, interviews, etc.  She practically just hid in her house until the election was over.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

47 minutes ago, Lushen said:

His plea was that the Virginia Democratic Party was involved and essentially advised him on what to do.  The issue here is authorities didn't actually catch him.  Apparently one of his co-workers noticed him submitting the name of someone he knew of personally to be dead.  He called the police, who were completely unaware of what was going on at this time, and likely wouldn't have noticed.

I'm not trying to place blame on the Democratic Party, I didn't know about this story until I just googled voter fraud and it was one of the first things I saw.

I'm not seeing anything about the Democratic Party involvement in the articles.

Quote

Russia definitely did influence the election. Hacking and rigging is not true, but paying people to influence the election is, and if Trump or his campaign were involved somehow in colluding with them then that's a huge deal. At this point, I don't doubt that parts of Trump's campaign (but not Trump himself) were involved in collusion (Flynn, Sessions) but it's stupid to dismiss outright.

Russia definitely did influence the election. Hacking and rigging is not true, but paying people to influence the election is, and if Trump or his campaign were involved somehow in colluding with them then that's a huge deal. At this point, I don't doubt that parts of Trump's campaign (but not Trump himself) were involved in collusion (Flynn, Sessions) but it's stupid to dismiss outright.

Quote

One of the most popular reasons for why Trump lost the election, has to do with African American turnout.  If it was anywhere near what we saw during the Obama election, I think it would have been a lot closer race.  People had expected Trump to have a low turnout for female voters, but he actually had more female white voters than Clinton did.  I also think Clinton did a very bad job campaigning.  It's like she thought she was going to win so much she just decided to not do any rallies, debates, interviews, etc.  She practically just hid in her house until the election was over.

No, she definitely campaigned, she just did it in all the wrong states. What was she doing in Texas or Iowa? Why didn't she go to Michigan or Wisconsin? Trump did the latter, which would explain polling discrepancies since Trump did it so last minute. Voter turnout was terrible too, and again Clinton lost a lot of Obama counties despite Trump receiving less votes than Romney. Voter turnout would've been quite a bit better if she actually went there!

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Res]

Russia's a big deal because it's less about whether they actually managed to skew the votes and more about whether there is evidence of collusion/tampering by a foreign government (especially a foreign government historically viewed with much suspicion and mistrust by the U.S.)

58 minutes ago, Lushen said:

One of the most popular reasons for why Trump lost the election, has to do with African American turnout.  If it was anywhere near what we saw during the Obama election, I think it would have been a lot closer race.  People had expected Trump to have a low turnout for female voters, but he actually had more female white voters than Clinton did.  I also think Clinton did a very bad job campaigning.  It's like she thought she was going to win so much she just decided to not do any rallies, debates, interviews, etc.  She practically just hid in her house until the election was over.

Are you saying you believe more black voters would have voted for Trump?

 

[Lushen]

Perhaps if Clinton hadn't done anything incriminating, Russia wouldn't have had any information to leak to influence the election.... Just saying....

 

24 minutes ago, Res said:

Are you saying you believe more black voters would have voted for Trump?

No, I said the turnout was significantly lower.  If I thought more black voters would vote for trump, a lower turnout would be bad for Trump.  I'm saying a very large percentage of black voters are democrats and their lack of turnout meant a lot less Clinton voters which contributed to her loss.  Trump won in all majority facets and the minority turnout in general was not large enough to overcome this.

 

Here's my problem with the whole Russia thing.  For MONTHS, people have been talking about how big of a deal it is because something could have possibly maybe happened.  While the FBI said Russia did TRY to interfere with the election, they have also said that Trump was NEVER under investigation and that not a single vote was changed (comey said that specifically).  

Democrats are talking about Russia because they think it ill-legitimizes Trumps win.  However, there is no evidence Trump was involved and there is no evidence saying this conspiracy actually did anything.  And this thing has been going on for MONTHS.  At what point do we say enough is enough?  I was watching TV a couple days ago and some woman was asked this question where she replied "well we haven't seen any evidence that he was NOT involved".  Since when is this how investigations work?  Must we really dwell on Russia-Trump collusion conspiracies until we get some imaginary evidence that Trump was NOT involved; that makes no sense.  It's the lack of evidence that legitimizes his presidency.  

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lushen