The TIC

Posts : 2141

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: ...other than one sketchy poll...

I wrote:: So, if your point is that polls are bunk, especially the one cited by Scorpion, you've failed.

It's clear you believe the poll is inaccurate and unreliable. So let's discuss Scorp's topic.

Here's some more on that poll. From what I've been able to gather, these types of commissioned SurveyMonkey polls have a 3.5 point (plus or minus) margin of error.

Here's a graphic that breaks everything down, along with the question that was asked...

The TIC - Page 2 6ef0d35776bec29160976c4dbb0568bf

The TIC - Page 2 6ef0d35776bec29160976c4dbb0568bf

Pretty damning...

Posts : 3520

Their methodology is explained here.

Posts : 6988

Artchel 60438 wrote:: Attempting to have a statistical discussion with an idiot like yourself whose math prowess probably ended at multiplication tables is a waste of mine and everyone else s time.

Let's discuss "math prowess", shall we?

Artchel 60438 wrote:: Clinton
48.5%
65,853,516

Trump
46.4%
62,984,825
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results

Turns out that the polls were pretty accurate only being off by 1% point.

Using your "math prowess", please demonstrate how 48.5 - 46.4 = 1.
And don't forget to show your work!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: ...other than one sketchy poll...

I wrote:: So, if your point is that polls are bunk, especially the one cited by Scorpion, you've failed.

It's clear you believe the poll is inaccurate and unreliable. So let's discuss Scorp's topic.

Here's some more on that poll. From what I've been able to gather, these types of commissioned SurveyMonkey polls have a 3.5 point (plus or minus) margin of error.

Here's a graphic that breaks everything down, along with the question that was asked...

The TIC - Page 2 6ef0d35776bec29160976c4dbb0568bf

Pretty damning...

This particular survey seems to have you guys all wee-weed up.
Why such an emotional investment in a simple, single poll?

Posts : 9728

Dumbest Trump Worshiper wrote:

Artie Schools our dumbkin Trumpkin wrote:: Attempting to have a statistical discussion with an idiot like yourself whose math prowess probably ended at multiplication tables is a waste of mine and everyone else s time.

Let's discuss "math prowess", shall we?

Artie Schools our dumbkin Trumpkin wrote:: Clinton
48.5%
65,853,516

Trump
46.4%
62,984,825
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results

Turns out that the polls were pretty accurate only being off by 1% point.

Using your "math prowess", please demonstrate how 48.5 - 46.4 = 1.
And don't forget to show your work!

[b]Thanks for the opportunity to prove once again you're a moron. Pay attention now

Last poll before 2016 election : Hillary Clinton
45.9% Donald J. Trump 42.8% Subtracting those numbers we get Hillary getting 3.1% more of the vote.

Next we have the actual results : Clinton 48.5% Trump 46.4% Subtracting those numbers = 2.1%

Still with us,cupcake? Feel free to use your fingers. We know how complicated math can be for you. Now subtract 2.1% from 3.1%. What's the result? See how easy that was?

Thanks for showing off your ignorance and stupidity once again. You're the gift that keeps on giving. santa

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

Dumbest Trump Worshiper wrote:

Artie Schools our dumbkin Trumpkin wrote:: Attempting to have a statistical discussion with an idiot like yourself whose math prowess probably ended at multiplication tables is a waste of mine and everyone else s time.

Let's discuss "math prowess", shall we?

Artie Schools our dumbkin Trumpkin wrote:: Clinton
48.5%
65,853,516

Trump
46.4%
62,984,825
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results

Turns out that the polls were pretty accurate only being off by 1% point.

Using your "math prowess", please demonstrate how 48.5 - 46.4 = 1.
And don't forget to show your work!

Thanks for the opportunity to prove once again you're a moron. Pay attention now

Last poll before 2016 election : Hillary Clinton
45.9% Donald J. Trump 42.8% Subtracting those numbers we get Hillary getting 3.1% more of the vote.

Next we have the actual results : Clinton 48.5% Trump 46.4% Subtracting those numbers = 2.1%

Still with us,cupcake? Feel free to use your fingers. We know how complicated math can be for you. Now subtract 2.1% from 3.1%. What's the result? See how easy that was?

Thanks for showing off your ignorance and stupidity once again. You're the gift that keeps on giving.

I stand corrected - misunderstood what you were saying.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: ...other than one sketchy poll...

I wrote:: So, if your point is that polls are bunk, especially the one cited by Scorpion, you've failed.

It's clear you believe the poll is inaccurate and unreliable. So let's discuss Scorp's topic.

Here's some more on that poll. From what I've been able to gather, these types of commissioned SurveyMonkey polls have a 3.5 point (plus or minus) margin of error.

Here's a graphic that breaks everything down, along with the question that was asked...

The TIC - Page 2 6ef0d35776bec29160976c4dbb0568bf

Pretty damning...

This particular survey seems to have you guys all wee-weed up.
Why such an emotional investment in a simple, single poll?

How about dealing with the fact that 40% of Republicans just don't give a damn about honest elections? Are you OK with that?

Posts : 3520

Scorpion wrote:: How about dealing with the fact that 40% of Republicans just don't give a damn about honest elections? Are you OK with that?

We know he is. We know the GOP is. And speaking of voter IDs and voter suppression, in person voter fraud is still complete bullshit.

Quote :: Documents from Presidential Voter “Fraud” Commission Released by Maine SOS Dunlap, Who Sued for Them

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: This particular survey seems to have you guys all wee-weed up.
Why such an emotional investment in a simple, single poll?

How about dealing with the fact that 40% of Republicans just don't give a damn about honest elections? Are you OK with that?

For one thing, I don't accept your premise as being any sort of "fact", seeing as how it is based on one poll. But even if I did, what would you expect me to do about it? I have no control over that, and whatever anyone else may think is no reflection on me.
And for another, I am for honest elections, and I don't believe that the results of the 2016 election were affected by anything the Wily Wussians may or may not have done.
Do you?
If so, how?

Posts : 9728

Heretic wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: How about dealing with the fact that 40% of Republicans just don't give a damn about honest elections? Are you OK with that?

We know he is. We know the GOP is

Tougher Russia sanctions face skepticism from Senate Republicans

Quote :: An effort to slap new financial penalties on Russia ahead of the midterms is facing pushback from Senate Republicans who question whether that's the best approach.

Party of Putin

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: This particular survey seems to have you guys all wee-weed up.
Why such an emotional investment in a simple, single poll?

How about dealing with the fact that 40% of Republicans just don't give a damn about honest elections? Are you OK with that?

happy jack wrote:: For one thing, I don't accept your premise as being any sort of "fact", seeing as how it is based on one poll.

The fact that the GOP doesn't care about fair elections is well documented at this point. Heretic's points about voter suppression and bogus voter fraud are valid, and this poll reinforces what most of us already knew... that the GOP cares only about winning, not winning fair elections.

happy jack wrote:: But even if I did, what would you expect me to do about it? I have no control over that, and whatever anyone else may think is no reflection on me.

Yeah. It kind of does reflect on you, jack. You have defended the GOP at every turn, especially regarding their voter suppression efforts. What I would expect from you is an admission that perhaps we've been right about the GOP all along.

Granted, it's only 40% of Republicans that have no problem with rigging the game, but at some point, I would think that you would begin to realize that you're backing a deeply corrupt party.

happy jack wrote:: And for another, I am for honest elections, and I don't believe that the results of the 2016 election were affected by anything the Wily Wussians may or may not have done.
Do you?
If so, how?

I do believe that you are for honest elections, which is why I hope that you consider the implications of continuing to back republican candidates regardless of the fact that the GOP is deeply corrupt.

I'm far more concerned about fair elections going forward than revisiting 2016.

But the vote in the 3 swing states (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) was exceedingly close, and may well have been affected by the Ruskies. On the other hand, it's clear to me that Hillary was a truly lousy candidate... would she have won without the Russian interference? Who knows?

I do know this... If the Trump campaign worked with the Russians in any way, shape or form to enhance Trump's chances of victory, then he is not a legitimate President. Do you agree?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Granted, it's only 40% of Republicans that have no problem with rigging the game, but at some point, I would think that you would begin to realize that you're backing a deeply corrupt party.

Believe it or not, I don't consider myself to be a Republican - I consider myself to be a conservative, first and foremost, who tends to vote Republican because the Republican party tends to offer the more conservative candidates. I might have voted for Biden in 2016, had he run, and I might have voted for Lieberman in 2000 had he been at the top of the ticket.
But let's have none of this holier-than-thou nonsense. You know full well that Democrats tried to steal a perfectly legitimate election in 2000 with their months-long hissy fits and recounts and recounts and recounts and recounts.

Scorpion wrote:: I do believe that you are for honest elections, which is why I hope that you consider the implications of continuing to back republican candidates regardless of the fact that the GOP is deeply corrupt.

If I don't vote for the Republican candidates, then I would be forced to vote for the Democrat candidates, and I'll take corrupt over crazy, any day of the week.

Scorpion wrote:: But the vote in the 3 swing states (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) was exceedingly close, and may well have been affected by the Ruskies. On the other hand, it's clear to me that Hillary was a truly lousy candidate... would she have won without the Russian interference? Who knows?

What specific Russian interference do you believe was responsible for her loss?

Scorpion wrote:: I do know this... If the Trump campaign worked with the Russians in any way, shape or form to enhance Trump's chances of victory, then he is not a legitimate President. Do you agree?

".... any way, shape or form .... " is a little vague and all-encompassing. It could entail anything from hacking voting software to drinking vodka at a strategy meeting. What did you have in mind?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Granted, it's only 40% of Republicans that have no problem with rigging the game, but at some point, I would think that you would begin to realize that you're backing a deeply corrupt party.

You know full well that Democrats tried to steal a perfectly legitimate election in 2000 with their months-long hissy fits and recounts and recounts and recounts and recounts.

No. I know nothing of the sort. In my opinion, there was nothing at all legitimate about what happened in Florida, but I have no interest in re-hashing it.

Scorpion wrote:: I do believe that you are for honest elections, which is why I hope that you consider the implications of continuing to back republican candidates regardless of the fact that the GOP is deeply corrupt.

happy jack wrote:: If I don't vote for the Republican candidates, then I would be forced to vote for the Democrat candidates, and I'll take corrupt over crazy, any day of the week.

I don't know why you would characterize the Democrats as "crazy." You even indicated that there were a couple that you may have voted for... if you're talking about specific individuals, there are plenty of crazies on the Republican side as well.

I think it's a mistake to accept corruption as a necessity. Russia is a foreign power. It's an extremely serious offense to accept help from a foreign nation to influence a political campaign. Yet, 40% of republicans are just fine with it? WTF!

Scorpion wrote:: But the vote in the 3 swing states (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) was exceedingly close, and may well have been affected by the Ruskies. On the other hand, it's clear to me that Hillary was a truly lousy candidate... would she have won without the Russian interference? Who knows?

happy jack wrote:: What specific Russian interference do you believe was responsible for her loss?

Like I said, I'm not sure if the interference was responsible or not. We'll have to wait and see what the Special Counsel comes up with...

Scorpion wrote:: I do know this... If the Trump campaign worked with the Russians in any way, shape or form to enhance Trump's chances of victory, then he is not a legitimate President. Do you agree?

happy jack wrote:: ".... any way, shape or form .... " is a little vague and all-encompassing. It could entail anything from hacking voting software to drinking vodka at a strategy meeting. What did you have in mind?

I don't have anything specific in mind. Again, we'll have to wait and see what the Special Counsel has to say.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I don't know why you would characterize the Democrats as "crazy." You even indicated that there were a couple that you may have voted for... if you're talking about specific individuals, there are plenty of crazies on the Republican side as well.

Yes, of course there are crazies on both sides, but I was referring to the high-visibility mainstreamers, i.e., Sanders, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez, etc..
And what list would be complete without Auntie Maxine?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I don't know why you would characterize the Democrats as "crazy." You even indicated that there were a couple that you may have voted for... if you're talking about specific individuals, there are plenty of crazies on the Republican side as well.

Yes, of course there are crazies on both sides, but I was referring to the high-visibility mainstreamers, i.e., Sanders, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez, etc..
And what list would be complete without Auntie Maxine?

Just curious... which policy positions of Bernie's do you consider "crazy," and why?

Posts : 3520

Quote :: Pretty much! pic.twitter.com/73nxk22W55
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) July 2, 2018

I'm down with "crazy" over corrupt any day of the week. There is no empirical reason not to be.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I don't know why you would characterize the Democrats as "crazy." You even indicated that there were a couple that you may have voted for... if you're talking about specific individuals, there are plenty of crazies on the Republican side as well.

Yes, of course there are crazies on both sides, but I was referring to the high-visibility mainstreamers, i.e., Sanders, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez, etc..
And what list would be complete without Auntie Maxine?

Just curious... which policy positions of Bernie's do you consider "crazy," and why?

Heretic wrote:

Quote :: Pretty much! pic.twitter.com/73nxk22W55
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) July 2, 2018

I'm down with "crazy" over corrupt any day of the week. There is no empirical reason not to be.

Free everything!!!!
For everybody!!!!
Forever!!!!
Yayyyy!!!!!!!!!

And while we're on the subject of 'crazy', maybe you can cast Sarah Jeong as a write-in candidate and use the below article to justify her agenda.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17648566/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-twitter-andrew-sullivan

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

Quote :: Pretty much! pic.twitter.com/73nxk22W55
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) July 2, 2018

I'm down with "crazy" over corrupt any day of the week. There is no empirical reason not to be.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-conservative-commentator-ben-shapiro_us_5b6d3267e4b0bdd06208193c

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Slams Conservative Commentator: ‘I Don’t Owe’ You A Response
Ben Shapiro challenged Ocasio-Cortez to a debate and offered her campaign $10,000 if she participated.

.........

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shot back at a conservative commentator on Twitter Thursday, comparing his invitation to debate him with a solicitation from a catcaller on the street.
“I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions,” Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic candidate for Congress in New York’s 14th District, wrote. “And also like catcalling, for some reason they feel entitled to one.”

.........

Yeah, no reason put your ignorance on display until you really have to.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Free everything!!!!
For everybody!!!!
Forever!!!!
Yayyyy!!!!!!!!!

That Fox News regurgitated criticism applies to what, maybe two things on that list? Not going to honestly answer Scorp's question, huh?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Free everything!!!!
For everybody!!!!
Forever!!!!
Yayyyy!!!!!!!!!

That Fox News regurgitated criticism applies to what, maybe two things on that list?

Medicare for all.
Who pays?
Housing as a right.
Who pays?
Guaranteed federal jobs.
Who pays?
Higher education for all.
Who pays?

Heretic wrote:: Not going to honestly answer Scorp's question, huh?

Thought I did.

Posts : 9728

MAGA Morons proving the validity of the poll Scorpion referenced

The TIC - Page 2 MAGA_morons

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Medicare for all.
Who pays?

Taxpayers, same as we do now, but for far less than it costs us now. And no families will go bankrupt due to illness.

happy jack wrote:: Housing as a right.
Who pays?

Don't know. Who pays for your right to firearms?

happy jack wrote:: Guaranteed federal jobs.
Who pays?

Taxpayers will with or without it thanks to ever increasing automation and advancements in AI looking to put millions out of work.

happy jack wrote:: Higher education for all.
Who pays?

Taxpayers, like we already do. Seems less "crazy" than making sure every young person graduates with record level student debt amid stagnant wages and increasing inflation.

None of this does, really. Certainly more reasonable, necessary, and attainable than a fucking Space Force.

happy jack wrote:

I wrote:: Not going to honestly answer Scorp's question, huh?

Thought I did.

I was referencing Ocasio-Cortez. Scorp was asking about Sanders.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: MAGA Morons proving the validity of the poll Scorpion referenced

All this 'proves' is that you have figured out how to post a photo.
Congratulations.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Who pays for your right to firearms?

In answer to possibly the stupidest question I have ever been asked: No one pays for my right to firearms.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: No one pays for my right to firearms.

Exactly (Well, ignoring the millions of dollars associated with the hundreds of thousands of Americans that are victims of gun violence each year, levels not seen in other countries. But yes, no direct monetary cost.)

Point being, there is no inherent cost to a right. It's all in the policy proposal that expresses that right. The Second Amendment simply limits how a citizen can purchase a firearm, and under what circumstances we can take that right away.

I'm unaware of any similar proposals for housing. You certainly didn't cite any. But the mere mention was enough for you to oppose it. Not only that, you called it "crazy." Post-Enron, post-Great Recession, post-housing market bust, post-trillion dollar tax cuts and billion dollar trade wars, post-fulltime minimum wage employment cannot afford housing anywhere in the US, your "rational" stance was "fuck Americans who lose their home. BECAUSE MONEY!!!"

And this is how bullshit arguments with conservatives about cost eventually breakdown. They always, *always* ignore the how. Taxpayers are always paying for an inane and ineffective conservative policies. And most "crazy" liberal proposals usually cite how much more effective funds would be if spent elsewhere.

A two trillion dollar tax cut that economists *knew* wouldn't result in the promised $4 to $9K wage increases, a $200 billion trade war, a laughably ineffective wall, more abstinence only programs, a downright hysterical expansion of ICE, a healthcare system that results in bankruptcies (which we pay for), war, war, more war, and war... Did I mention wars? The list is endless and exhaustive, and we always have money for those. I don't remember a single time (for "war", I remember a single instance of feigned concern about "boots on the ground" in Libya) you've voiced opposition to any of those because "Who pays?"

Healthcare covering mental illness and drug addiction? Limiting the effects of poverty, all of which are the largest factors for criminal behavior? Affordable college, so graduates can immediately and independently start contributing to the economy instead of years after gainful employment? Making sure cities can rebuild after being destroyed by the ignored threat of global warming and the resulting warming-induced fires, floods, and sea level rise? That's "crazy."

But I digress. It's a decade old argument at this point, and you have nothing to offer than the usual evidence ignoring hyperbole. So stop using me as an excuse to avoid Scorp's question.

Scorpion wrote:: Just curious... which policy positions of Bernie's do you consider "crazy," and why?