Clinton Trail of Bodies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2016, 05:18 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(02-06-2016 10:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Firstly, I'm aware of who and what Trump is. The thing is that there would be no need for me to defend him if people only criticized him fairly. You may tell me to "grow up", but then I'd tell you to "be accurate."

I was accurate. And, I backed up everything I said with links that contained direct quotes from him. If you don't like the quotes, I'm happy to provide video.

(02-06-2016 10:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Secondly, I sadly won't be able to provide you with millions of comments (just imagine how long those would take to collect), but that's not really how statistics work either. I won't claim that there's a way to make sure the online sample is statistically representative of the voter base as a whole, but it's big enough to counter your point that my generalization is based on only one or a few examples. It comes from spending a lot of time observing her supporters and I've noticed similar common behaviors among the other candidates' supporters.

I'm aware of how statistics work. I'm also aware of how sampling works. Drawing conclusions based solely on people who comment on the internet doesn't work because that is not a representative sample.

Entities who run statistical models on politics for a living, like Gallup and Pew, spend as much time coming up with their sample demographics as they do their questions in order to draw meaningful conclusions from limited data points.

I have some professional experience with this. Not with human samples but with statistical analysis in general. It is pretty amazing how data points can be manipulated and how important it is to get your sample right, not just from a size perspective but from a data validity perspective. And, comments on the internet don't pass muster.

Look, there is no denying that there is a percentage of Clinton supporters that take the exact stance you are claiming. But, I've not seen any evidence that is the majority of her supporters. I know plenty of people who are voting for her primarily because they find her the least offensive of the options (and they don't like Sanders' policies). Voter cognitive dissonance is not unique to one candidate or one election. People rationalize all kinds of bullshit to justify their votes. You act like this is some kind of unique phenomenon for Clinton. It's not.

(02-06-2016 10:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Thirdly, last I heard, the FBI is currently looking into the Clinton Foundation from a corruption angle; it will be interesting to see what comes of that. There may not be positive proof right now, but it's like that saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

I already said that I suspect the Clinton Foundation was dirty. But, here's the funny thing. You are going on and on about other people's inaccuracies and attacking Trump on things they made up. And then, in the next breath, you claim that the Clinton Foundation - an organization that has not been formally accused of anything - and "its many nefarious donors" is somehow proof of your claim that she's the most corrupt politician in US history.

Irony much?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 05:20 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 04:09 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 03:45 AM)BnW Wrote:  I don't get why people support Clinton, but I'm equally flabbergasted that people support Trump. I can't imagine two more disgusting choices.

I can agree, but at least trump is entertaining.

To each their own, but I find nothing about that scumbag to be at all entertaining.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 05:50 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 05:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  I was accurate. And, I backed up everything I said with links that contained direct quotes from him. If you don't like the quotes, I'm happy to provide video.
You know, I'm not very fond of people lying straight to my face. How can you claim that you were being accurate when you yourself, in your own words, verbatim, said "Well, that's not completely accurate" about one of your own claims?

Let's recap, shall we? You first claimed that I said Clinton is the most corrupt politician of all time. I pointed out that your claim is inaccurate because I actually said that she's the most corrupt politician in US history. Afterwards, you claimed that Trump called Mexicans murderers and rapists when he announced his campaign, yet the speech he gave at that time only mentions the term "rapists", not "murderers." It also turns out that the time he referred to them as "killers" (he never actually called them murderers) was during a CNN interview that happened at a later date. That's another two inaccuracies right there. I wouldn't haunt you so much about this issue if you just admitted to it, but your bold-faced lying forces me to call you out on your bullshit.

(03-06-2016 05:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  I'm aware of how statistics work. I'm also aware of how sampling works. Drawing conclusions based solely on people who comment on the internet doesn't work because that is not a representative sample.

Entities who run statistical models on politics for a living, like Gallup and Pew, spend as much time coming up with their sample demographics as they do their questions in order to draw meaningful conclusions from limited data points.

I have some professional experience with this. Not with human samples but with statistical analysis in general. It is pretty amazing how data points can be manipulated and how important it is to get your sample right, not just from a size perspective but from a data validity perspective. And, comments on the internet don't pass muster.

Look, there is no denying that there is a percentage of Clinton supporters that take the exact stance you are claiming. But, I've not seen any evidence that is the majority of her supporters. I know plenty of people who are voting for her primarily because they find her the least offensive of the options (and they don't like Sanders' policies). Voter cognitive dissonance is not unique to one candidate or one election. People rationalize all kinds of bullshit to justify their votes. You act like this is some kind of unique phenomenon for Clinton. It's not.
I'm not sure what to say in response to this part since I never said the majority of Clinton supporters are like this or that the phenomenon is unique to her supporters.

(03-06-2016 05:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  I already said that I suspect the Clinton Foundation was dirty. But, here's the funny thing. You are going on and on about other people's inaccuracies and attacking Trump on things they made up. And then, in the next breath, you claim that the Clinton Foundation - an organization that has not been formally accused of anything - and "its many nefarious donors" is somehow proof of your claim that she's the most corrupt politician in US history.

Irony much?
You're being very naive here. Do you honestly believe that one needs to be formally accused of something before one can be guilty of something? Does there have to be an official trial until we can say that many Mexican government officials are corrupt? Do we need Putin to be formally charged by the judicial branch of the Russian government before we can say that he's corrupt? You can believe that Saudi Arabia and other oppressive dictatorships gave the Clintons tens of millions of dollars out of the kindness of their heart if you wish, but I personally choose not to be in denial about it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 08:04 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 05:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're being very naive here. Do you honestly believe that one needs to be formally accused of something before one can be guilty of something? Does there have to be an official trial until we can say that many Mexican government officials are corrupt? Do we need Putin to be formally charged by the judicial branch of the Russian government before we can say that he's corrupt? You can believe that Saudi Arabia and other oppressive dictatorships gave the Clintons tens of millions of dollars out of the kindness of their heart if you wish, but I personally choose not to be in denial about it.

If that's the angle you want to take, it's by definition equally ridiculous to make either firm claim.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 08:50 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 05:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 05:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  I was accurate. And, I backed up everything I said with links that contained direct quotes from him. If you don't like the quotes, I'm happy to provide video.
You know, I'm not very fond of people lying straight to my face. How can you claim that you were being accurate when you yourself, in your own words, verbatim, said "Well, that's not completely accurate" about one of your own claims?

Let's recap, shall we? You first claimed that I said Clinton is the most corrupt politician of all time. I pointed out that your claim is inaccurate because I actually said that she's the most corrupt politician in US history. Afterwards, you claimed that Trump called Mexicans murderers and rapists when he announced his campaign, yet the speech he gave at that time only mentions the term "rapists", not "murderers." It also turns out that the time he referred to them as "killers" (he never actually called them murderers) was during a CNN interview that happened at a later date. That's another two inaccuracies right there. I wouldn't haunt you so much about this issue if you just admitted to it, but your bold-faced lying forces me to call you out on your bullshit.

(03-06-2016 05:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  I'm aware of how statistics work. I'm also aware of how sampling works. Drawing conclusions based solely on people who comment on the internet doesn't work because that is not a representative sample.

Entities who run statistical models on politics for a living, like Gallup and Pew, spend as much time coming up with their sample demographics as they do their questions in order to draw meaningful conclusions from limited data points.

I have some professional experience with this. Not with human samples but with statistical analysis in general. It is pretty amazing how data points can be manipulated and how important it is to get your sample right, not just from a size perspective but from a data validity perspective. And, comments on the internet don't pass muster.

Look, there is no denying that there is a percentage of Clinton supporters that take the exact stance you are claiming. But, I've not seen any evidence that is the majority of her supporters. I know plenty of people who are voting for her primarily because they find her the least offensive of the options (and they don't like Sanders' policies). Voter cognitive dissonance is not unique to one candidate or one election. People rationalize all kinds of bullshit to justify their votes. You act like this is some kind of unique phenomenon for Clinton. It's not.
I'm not sure what to say in response to this part since I never said the majority of Clinton supporters are like this or that the phenomenon is unique to her supporters.

(03-06-2016 05:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  I already said that I suspect the Clinton Foundation was dirty. But, here's the funny thing. You are going on and on about other people's inaccuracies and attacking Trump on things they made up. And then, in the next breath, you claim that the Clinton Foundation - an organization that has not been formally accused of anything - and "its many nefarious donors" is somehow proof of your claim that she's the most corrupt politician in US history.

Irony much?
You're being very naive here. Do you honestly believe that one needs to be formally accused of something before one can be guilty of something? Does there have to be an official trial until we can say that many Mexican government officials are corrupt? Do we need Putin to be formally charged by the judicial branch of the Russian government before we can say that he's corrupt? You can believe that Saudi Arabia and other oppressive dictatorships gave the Clintons tens of millions of dollars out of the kindness of their heart if you wish, but I personally choose not to be in denial about it.

So, just so I'm clear: my conflating two statements trump made within days of each other is both lying to you AND evidence that people are attacking him over things that didn't happen (despite the fact that it actually did happen, just a few days later than I originally recalled), but it's naive to not jump to conclusions about the Clinton Foundation.

Is that about it?

Earlier I asked "irony much"? I now have my answer.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 08:50 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 05:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You know, I'm not very fond of people lying straight to my face. How can you claim that you were being accurate when you yourself, in your own words, verbatim, said "Well, that's not completely accurate" about one of your own claims?

Let's recap, shall we? You first claimed that I said Clinton is the most corrupt politician of all time. I pointed out that your claim is inaccurate because I actually said that she's the most corrupt politician in US history. Afterwards, you claimed that Trump called Mexicans murderers and rapists when he announced his campaign, yet the speech he gave at that time only mentions the term "rapists", not "murderers." It also turns out that the time he referred to them as "killers" (he never actually called them murderers) was during a CNN interview that happened at a later date. That's another two inaccuracies right there. I wouldn't haunt you so much about this issue if you just admitted to it, but your bold-faced lying forces me to call you out on your bullshit.

I'm not sure what to say in response to this part since I never said the majority of Clinton supporters are like this or that the phenomenon is unique to her supporters.

You're being very naive here. Do you honestly believe that one needs to be formally accused of something before one can be guilty of something? Does there have to be an official trial until we can say that many Mexican government officials are corrupt? Do we need Putin to be formally charged by the judicial branch of the Russian government before we can say that he's corrupt? You can believe that Saudi Arabia and other oppressive dictatorships gave the Clintons tens of millions of dollars out of the kindness of their heart if you wish, but I personally choose not to be in denial about it.

So, just so I'm clear: my conflating two statements trump made within days of each other is both lying to you AND evidence that people are attacking him over things that didn't happen (despite the fact that it actually did happen, just a few days later than I originally recalled), but it's naive to not jump to conclusions about the Clinton Foundation.

Is that about it?

Earlier I asked "irony much"? I now have my answer.
No, please try reading my post carefully. The lie I accused you of was the claim that you were being accurate. I provided evidence for that accusation in the form of several inaccurate statements that you made. You have yet to concede that point.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
Fine, you win. My comment on the fucking timestamp of his comment was incorrect. I also used the word "murderers" instead of the synonym of "killers", which is the word Herr Hair Piece actually used.

You got me! Congratulations.

Facepalm

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 10:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  Fine, you win. My comment on the fucking timestamp of his comment was incorrect. I also used the word "murderers" instead of the synonym of "killers", which is the word Herr Hair Piece actually used.

You got me! Congratulations.

Facepalm

[Image: GdYmCY.jpg]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 12:24 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 05:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 10:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Firstly, I'm aware of who and what Trump is. The thing is that there would be no need for me to defend him if people only criticized him fairly. You may tell me to "grow up", but then I'd tell you to "be accurate."

I was accurate. And, I backed up everything I said with links that contained direct quotes from him. If you don't like the quotes, I'm happy to provide video.

(02-06-2016 10:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Secondly, I sadly won't be able to provide you with millions of comments (just imagine how long those would take to collect), but that's not really how statistics work either. I won't claim that there's a way to make sure the online sample is statistically representative of the voter base as a whole, but it's big enough to counter your point that my generalization is based on only one or a few examples. It comes from spending a lot of time observing her supporters and I've noticed similar common behaviors among the other candidates' supporters.

I'm aware of how statistics work. I'm also aware of how sampling works. Drawing conclusions based solely on people who comment on the internet doesn't work because that is not a representative sample.

Entities who run statistical models on politics for a living, like Gallup and Pew, spend as much time coming up with their sample demographics as they do their questions in order to draw meaningful conclusions from limited data points.

I have some professional experience with this. Not with human samples but with statistical analysis in general. It is pretty amazing how data points can be manipulated and how important it is to get your sample right, not just from a size perspective but from a data validity perspective. And, comments on the internet don't pass muster.

Look, there is no denying that there is a percentage of Clinton supporters that take the exact stance you are claiming. But, I've not seen any evidence that is the majority of her supporters. I know plenty of people who are voting for her primarily because they find her the least offensive of the options (and they don't like Sanders' policies). Voter cognitive dissonance is not unique to one candidate or one election. People rationalize all kinds of bullshit to justify their votes. You act like this is some kind of unique phenomenon for Clinton. It's not.

(02-06-2016 10:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Thirdly, last I heard, the FBI is currently looking into the Clinton Foundation from a corruption angle; it will be interesting to see what comes of that. There may not be positive proof right now, but it's like that saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

I already said that I suspect the Clinton Foundation was dirty. But, here's the funny thing. You are going on and on about other people's inaccuracies and attacking Trump on things they made up. And then, in the next breath, you claim that the Clinton Foundation - an organization that has not been formally accused of anything - and "its many nefarious donors" is somehow proof of your claim that she's the most corrupt politician in US history.

Irony much?

62% of those polled said it hurt like hell and they would not put up with it any more!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Born Again Pagan's post
03-06-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 12:21 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 10:18 AM)BnW Wrote:  Fine, you win. My comment on the fucking timestamp of his comment was incorrect. I also used the word "murderers" instead of the synonym of "killers", which is the word Herr Hair Piece actually used.

You got me! Congratulations.

Facepalm

[Image: GdYmCY.jpg]

I am stealing this. Laugh out load

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: