Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be The 2016 Republican Nominee? (It's Donald Trump) Who Will Be The 2016 Republican Nominee? (It's Donald Trump)

03-02-2016 , 12:17 AM
Fly, it seems like you're full of **** and are CAUGHT.

Once again, what was the arithmetic/algebra mistake Alex made?
03-02-2016 , 12:23 AM
It would be super lol if rubio wins co somehow too.
03-02-2016 , 12:33 AM
I don't know who this fly guy is kidding, he knows for a fact that Drumpf supporters have the best numbers. They go to the best, the smartest schools, they learn the best numbers, all the numbers, just the terrific numbers.

This Alex Wice, though, what a winner. He's winning from every angle. Ways I didn't even think possible. He knows the only person with more sigmas, we're talking so many sigmas you wouldn't believe, more sigmas than he's ever seen, is this guy, right here, Donald Drumpf. Most sigmas you've ever, and that's from my top-notch education, where I learned just the best words. He knows it, fly knows it, you all know it, even the haters know it. My sigmas are so high off the charts you can't even see them. Just outstanding sigmas.
03-02-2016 , 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smrk2
It would be super lol if rubio wins co somehow too.
He won't. The CO GOP elected not to award ANY pledged delegates for some reason.
03-02-2016 , 12:42 AM
Thats why it would be lol
03-02-2016 , 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenC
Fly, it seems like you're full of **** and are CAUGHT.

Once again, what was the arithmetic/algebra mistake Alex made?
Alex falsely compared the percentage of claims checked by Politifact to the total quantity of statements made.
03-02-2016 , 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Alex falsely compared the percentage of claims checked by Politifact to the total quantity of statements made.
That's exactly the point though. The idea that Politifact rating you x% liar makes you more or less of a liar is very weak. Because they don't check every statement. The reason I brought it up is because John Oliver started his criticism with that argument that Trump is a 76% rated liar and presumably therefore is a bigger liar. Under a similar metric, Hillary is 25 times more truthful which I thought self-evidently is bogus (and therefore proves by contradiction that JO's argument is very weak.) Apparently it wasn't self-evident, and when pressed on why, I gave that mathematical explanation above.
03-02-2016 , 12:55 AM
This Trump supporter on CNN looks like the typical KKK member.
03-02-2016 , 12:56 AM
lololol, if rubio drops out, and cruz gains some momentum, massive ****ing pay day for me, as much as i despise cruz as a person, rooting for him super hardcore now
03-02-2016 , 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberShark93
lololol, if rubio drops out, and cruz gains some momentum, massive ****ing pay day for me, as much as i despise cruz as a person, rooting for him super hardcore now
What positions do you have?
03-02-2016 , 01:07 AM
Alex didn't realize how politifact worked or that Jon oliver routinely did political stuff outside his show and made a long winded dumb post while not backtracking since if anyone wants cliffs
03-02-2016 , 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81
What positions do you have?
i'm for bernie ideologically
03-02-2016 , 01:17 AM
I meant what bets did you place.
03-02-2016 , 01:17 AM
this schill for Cruz on CNN (Amanda?) is embarrassing.
03-02-2016 , 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81
I meant what bets did you place.
i have £50 on cruz at 40/1 and £50 on bernie at 14/1

so £2k if cruz wins rep
£700 if bernie wins dem

its not a lot for some of u guys, but its a lot of money for a student
03-02-2016 , 01:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Alex didn't realize how politifact worked
I understand exactly how it works. It's other people that don't understand it's biased as hell. My argument clearly exposes that its biased. That's also why Hillary has a better Politifact rating than Sanders. Politifact is shilling, disguised to the average joe as some kind of neutral fact checking agency when really it's just a hit job created by a bunch of self-described liberals who still believe in this partisan "my team better than yours" nonsense.
03-02-2016 , 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberShark93
i'm for bernie ideologically
I'm sure Bernie uses this book as his pillow and so should you...

03-02-2016 , 01:29 AM
In your posts vs fly that you just quoted you show a clear misunderstanding of how politifact works and no argument that it is biased.

Glad you didn't try to argue that oliver hasn't done political stuff outside his show like a dozen times before getting you riled up about t shirts though. You at least knew that was a fight lost. If you paid as much attention to your own country as you did flag waving for Trump you would have realized he did a very similar anti Harper piece to what he did for Trump. That got zero posts from you though.
03-02-2016 , 01:32 AM
Trump pivoted very well tonight. Even Megyn Kelly said that Trump came off presidential. That's saying a lot.

I was saying Trump would PIVOT here so many times. Everyone laughed, how can a racist blowhard pivot? Now it's coming true right in front of you. (Maybe NYTimes has a tape too if you believe that story, which is purportedly about a smoking gun on Trump saying he's bull****ting and he will pivot.)

Now maybe you'd want to read my prediction about the general again now that I'm proven right on betting Trump fanatically for the last few months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Wice DEC 15 2015
Mark my words if trump makes a general vs Hillary, people are going to be persuaded. You'll have undecideds being like wow I was probably going to vote Hillary but now I'm voting trump. No-one sees it coming but it's plainly obvious. Here is trump who made his net favorability go from twice as bad as last place, to top 3 in a few months. That's unheard of. He will persuade.

How will he capture votes in the general you ask? Simple, what he's been doing this whole time. He will have market research + experts getting him basically the best policies in terms of getting elected (aka what the people want.) Unlike the past, these policies will be moderate for the general, not extreme. And they will be well thought out by these experts. He will mete these out slowly to continue to dominate the media.

The policies, because they are sane and written by non partisan established experts, will be endorsed by many credible people which will build his viability as not extreme. Over time people will forget all the crazy sht he said, all the while during debates and on tv he will carefully explain these policies like he did when he explained how various laws are making health insurance not competitive. Again, the fact that there will be presidential debates is key because it gives him a neutral platform for persuading the public.

Many of the policies he will espouse will be things almost everyone agrees on like ending fraud waste abuse crony-capitalism money in politics etc.

At the same time, he will be targeting Hillary by challenging her to meet the same criteria, either in a formal pledge or informally. Hillary, who is handcuffed by donors, will be forced to lie about her policies to keep up, plus forced to agree to the pledge, which means she's conceded the lead to the viewing public - or dismiss the pledge which will be used as ammo with a kernel of truth to attack her with.
03-02-2016 , 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Ikon
I'm sure Bernie uses this book as his pillow and so should you...

i would argue bernie is more of a libertarian than a communist
03-02-2016 , 01:38 AM
Alex, don't you remember how the arguments went? It was very few people saying he wouldn't pivot. It was mostly saying that supporting someone who built their campaign based on bigotry then hoping he was pivoting is not a good look for you or the candidate.
03-02-2016 , 01:38 AM
Ummm, no



Bernie is a Euro style Social Democrat, clearly neither a Libertarian nor a Communist.
03-02-2016 , 01:40 AM
There's what, a 10% chance Cruz is the zodiak killer?
03-02-2016 , 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
In your posts vs fly that you just quoted you show a clear misunderstanding of how politifact works and no argument that it is biased.

Glad you didn't try to argue that oliver hasn't done political stuff outside his show like a dozen times before getting you riled up about t shirts though. You at least knew that was a fight lost
Wrong on all counts. Politifact does not claim to review every statement, and I do not claim that politifact reviews every statement. My claim is only that the politifact rating of someone is so weakly correlated to how often someone lies as to be almost useless (giving two examples of Bernie vs Hillary, and Trump vs Hillary), and therefore the Oliver premise of interpreting that 76% figure as meaningful is wrong. Secondly, I did go after bias, with a study of two "Pants on fire" claims. I tried to keep the section short because it already is a very long section.

As to the "Oliver has done stuff before which makes it okay", I glossed over it because it wasn't even an argument. Because if one believes Oliver is a douche for doing what he did, then doing it multiple times doesn't make it less douchey. It's not relevant to the question at hand, is Oliver a douche for doing that. It is also still somewhat of a rare event for Oliver, plus his merch shop doesn't have many other items aside from his stuff and drumpf stuff. Finally, it is exceedingly rare behavior (if they even EVER have done something similar) for other comedians.
03-02-2016 , 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Wice
Wrong on all counts. Politifact does not claim to review every statement, and I do not claim that politifact reviews every statement.
Okay, except you said that > 4% of what Hitler said would be at least generically true, and then in your defense you quoted a Hitler speech containing lots of generically true things. A weird defense to use if you knew all along that generically true statements are not reviewed by politifact.

The offer still stands btw, if you want to give us like 4 Hitler statements politifact would rate as true. For example, something like "The Germans could have won WW1 in 1918", is that true, mostly true, half true, etc.?

Quote:
My claim is only that the politifact rating of someone is so weakly correlated to how often someone lies as to be almost useless (giving two examples of Bernie vs Hillary, and Trump vs Hillary)...
And you still don't understand how politifact works. It does not purport to correlate to 'how often someone lies'. They choose some small number of statements to rate, rates them, and adds up the percentages based on the sample of statements it rated, nothing else.

      
m