IGX

These same wankers had Hilliary winning in a landslide. It is one thing to be a leftist , it is an other thing to let it cloud your math.

powerlifter54 wrote:These same wankers had Hilliary winning in a landslide.

Must have been using alternative facts

nafod wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:These same wankers had Hilliary winning in a landslide.

Must have been using alternative facts

The Kings and Queens of being wrong, the Media and Hilliary.

Enjoy today's smackdown.

Is "tweeting" like the Donald does presidential? Now I'm not sure exactly what "presidential" is but I find the amount of his tweeting kinda strange at best. In one way I like that it's not all Washington insiders but some of the cabinet choices kind of leave me shaking my head a little. The Dept of Education lady for one - she didn't seem to know a darn thing about our system and the laws affecting it. Now I think some change might be good here but doing a little homework before going before congress might have been nice. Oh sure I think they will all get in because they have enough majority votes to get it done - but the general public (like me) might support you better if you didn't look like an entitled dumb-ass in the proceedings. To run the dept of education I guess I expected someone educated in the subject matter of what we currently have.

Didn't those bookies pay out to people who bet on Hillary winning?

powerlifter54 wrote:

nafod wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:These same wankers had Hilliary winning in a landslide.

Must have been using alternative facts

The Kings and Queens of being wrong, the Media and Hilliary.

Enjoy today's smackdown.

Do you agree with Trump that 3-5 million illegal aliens voted in the election, giving the popular vote to Hilliary?

So Trump's stupid for believing a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is based on data from a long running and ongoing poll run by Harvard and Stanford scientists (which is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation)?
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc ... 9414000973
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home

If people feel that their standard of living is going up it will take a unicorn to impeach him.

If things get fucky, maybe in the next congress. That didn't work out well for the Repugs when Dennis Hastert went after Clinton for lying about sex (which is hilarious in its own right).

Turdacious wrote:So Trump's stupid for believing a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is based on data from a long running and ongoing poll run by Harvard and Stanford scientists (which is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation)?
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc ... 9414000973
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home

Do you agree with Trump that 3-5 million illegal aliens voted in the election, giving the popular vote to Hilliary?

Take a stand, Turd.

powerlifter54 wrote:These same wankers had Hilliary winning in a landslide.

No they didn't.

Either the peer review process that allowed that study to be published is garbage, or Trump may be right.

Re the CCES:

There is power in numbers. Starting in 2006, a consortium of 39 universities came together to create the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the first truly large-scale academic survey project aimed at studying the midterm Congressional elections. The study has continued every year since. Our joint efforts have produced national sample surveys in excess of 50,000 respondents in every federal election since. Professors Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University and Brian Schaffner of the University of Massachusetts coordinate the CCES and YouGov in Palo Alto, CA, conducts and distributes the surveys.

If between 8-14% of voters are illegal (as the study suggests), then it's certainly possible. The recent excuses from the pollsters (that between 8-14% of respondents didn't understand how to fill out the survey correctly) screams bullshit.

I know enough about polling and survey methodology to know I'm not an expert in either.

Do I think illegal aliens were the difference? No. Do I think that non-citizens (i.e. illegal voters) made the difference? That's more plausible, but also no-- mostly because I think Democrats don't want them effecting Democratic primaries.

Turdacious wrote:If between 8-14% of voters are illegal (as the study suggests).

That is not what the study suggests.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:If between 8-14% of voters are illegal (as the study suggests).

That is not what the study suggests.

Fair enough, I misspoke.
From the study:

In 2010 76 (15.6%) of non-citizens indicated that they were registered to vote in either the pre-election or post-election survey waves. In 2008, the proportion of non-citizens who were in fact registered to vote was somewhere between 19.8% (all who
reported or had verified registration, or both) and 3.3% (11 non-citizen respondents were almost certainly registered to vote because they both stated that they were registered and had their registration status verified). Even the low-end estimate suggests a fairly substantial population of registered-to-vote non-citizens nationwide. Out of roughly 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the United States, this would represent a population of roughly 620,000 registered non-citizens.

Is it reasonable to assume that recent registration drives may have increased the number of illegal voters? Yes. If that raises the number of non-citizen registered voters to 1m (and how many people who are knowingly doing things illegally are going to admit it), those who were ineligible to vote due to criminal history, then you add in the 2m voters residing in Cook County cemeteries, it's possible. Unlikely, but reasonable enough to make a plausible case in the court of public opinion.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:If between 8-14% of voters are illegal (as the study suggests).

That is not what the study suggests.

Fair enough, I misspoke.
From the study:

In 2010 76 (15.6%) of non-citizens indicated that they were registered to vote in either the pre-election or post-election survey waves. In 2008, the proportion of non-citizens who were in fact registered to vote was somewhere between 19.8% (all who
reported or had verified registration, or both) and 3.3% (11 non-citizen respondents were almost certainly registered to vote because they both stated that they were registered and had their registration status verified). Even the low-end estimate suggests a fairly substantial population of registered-to-vote non-citizens nationwide. Out of roughly 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the United States, this would represent a population of roughly 620,000 registered non-citizens.

Is it reasonable to assume that recent registration drives may have increased the number of illegal voters? Yes. If that raises the number of non-citizen registered voters to 1m (and how many people who are knowingly doing things illegally are going to admit it), those who were ineligible to vote due to criminal history, then you add in the 2m voters residing in Cook County cemeteries, it's possible. Unlikely, but reasonable enough to make a plausible case in the court of public opinion.

So...you believe that there is a high likelihood that 3-5 million illegal immigrants voted in this last election, giving Hilliary the popular vote?

There's analyzing what can cast doubt in people's minds, and then there is what you believe. What say you, Turd?

I'll go first. I think it is total bullshit.

Big difference between illegal immigrants and illegal voters. I'm surprised that you'd use the phrase illegal immigrant-- isn't that offensive?

DrDonkeyLove wrote:If people feel that their standard of living is going up it will take a unicorn to impeach him.

Improve the economy - 3+% growth (something Obama couldn't do in 8 years*). = Success* -> Reelection.

Tim, to answer your initial question - I'd take Trump completing his term for $100.



*If Trump succeeds, watch Obama worshippers say, "Obama laid the groundwork."

I predict that, despite being called a clown by most of the media and most academics, that Trump will win this debate (i.e. successfully tighten up voter registration requirements in time for the next election). They are throwing rocks at a man whose got a machine gun.

Turdacious wrote:I predict that, despite being called a clown by most of the media and most academics, that Trump will win this debate (i.e. successfully tighten up voter registration requirements in time for the next election). They are throwing rocks at a man whose got a machine gun.

You are giving Kellyanne competition at not answering the question at hand

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I predict that, despite being called a clown by most of the media and most academics, that Trump will win this debate (i.e. successfully tighten up voter registration requirements in time for the next election). They are throwing rocks at a man whose got a machine gun.

You are giving Kellyanne competition at not answering the question at hand

Hillary lost and you're bitter- I get it.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I predict that, despite being called a clown by most of the media and most academics, that Trump will win this debate (i.e. successfully tighten up voter registration requirements in time for the next election). They are throwing rocks at a man whose got a machine gun.

You are giving Kellyanne competition at not answering the question at hand

Hillary lost and you're bitter- I get it.

So you think 3-5 million illegal votes were submitted in the election, giving Hilliary the popular vote.

Traditionally, this is about as high as a president's approval gets, and it's starting out bad. The Senate almost certainly won't flip in 2018 given the states in play, so can't get impeached unless the GOP decides to dump him. He'd have to drop into the 20's for that to have a chance. Hard to see it.

powerlifter54 wrote:

nafod wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:These same wankers had Hilliary winning in a landslide.

Must have been using alternative facts

The Kings . . . of being wrong, the Media

who is this dangerous monolithic monster?

fox news?
the networks?
cnn and msnbc?
the wapo and nyt?
The wsj and xtian science monitor
gannet and mcclatchy?
the webbly-nets: breibart, bloomberg, slate ad infinitum

your argument appears to be that they are are controlled by the one great oz and bent on deception

hardcore journalists live to afflict the comfortable. in orangeman and hillary they had two fat targets. both took heavy incoming fire, and deservedly so

your statement is meaningless because it is build on a false concept

use your brain. you know better than to serve the intellectual equivalent of a hot dog.

nafod wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:These same wankers had Hilliary winning in a landslide.

Must have been using alternative facts

So was it an alternative fact when Obama said he didn't know about Hillarys private server? Come to find out he emailed her on it several times under a fake name.

#alternativefactsinhistory

. . .