Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Will he get shot for trying this?

He won't get a shot at it at all.

He will work towards it.

Shot by who?

Originally posted by riv6672
Shot by who? da gubberment.

Dont feel you have to negro your replies up for me because i'm black. I can post in fluent caucasian.

Its what Alex Jones says all the time, friendo.

Originally posted by Its2016
Its what Alex Jones says all the time, friendo.
Budeep a bubba da beep my lubba.

Originally posted by riv6672
Budeep a bubba da beep my lubba. English, mother****er! Do you speak it?

Haha!

Does anyone not care about this? Im sure i remember people dont like lobbyists.

Maybe people are getting tired of the endless Trump/Clinton conversations.
I mean this election seems to have been discussed here since the site opened.

It has been a big discussion. It used to be a massive circle jerk of "trump is dumb, bernie is great" but thats thankfully gone away when trump started winning.

I just think this is an actual topic worthy discussing and it seems like Trump may or may not go through with this.

I was wondering what the forum'll look like after a winner's announced (Clinton) and a recount's demanded (Trump).

can all these trump and hillary threads be eliminated into one for each? this is literally spamming...

Well it is pretty predictable, im still hoping for a trump landslide, but ill probably be quiet if that scenario happens. So lucky you, i guess.

When he asks Congress for all this, they're going to tell him "no", and that'll be the end of it.

Then he will say "youre fired"

Trump IS a lobbyist. And after this election he will go back to lobbying.

Acting like Trump never used lobbyists

I believe he said he did, so who is acting like that besides your dumbass straw man? Have you ever noticed what a child you are? 18 year old college kid who thinks he is the ruler of the world.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I believe he said he did, so who is acting like that besides your dumbass straw man? Have you ever noticed what a child you are? 18 year old college kid who thinks he is the ruler of the world. Huh... I'm getting flashbacks.

Only ruler of the world? Do you have any idea who I am? I am he who knows all. Look up my username.

Familiar path here.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Only ruler of the world? Do you have any idea who I am? I am he who knows all. Look up my username.

Except you are 18 and dont know about much of anything, you prolly have never voted in your life. You prolly never been in a court room, sat on a jury or grand jury, And now you are the expert on politics, military, law and everything else cause you watch CNN and read Huff post

i mean, you're older than me, but so are many turtles. I'm much smarter and better read than you though, and when it comes to somewhat high level discussions that eventually outweighs your age.

I'm also pretty sure that companies I've worked for are ones you could never get into.

lol

It seems that way because your puny brain cannot comprehend my brilliance.

You have yet to have any high level political discussion, its only a smug act. The only discussion you have is Bane vs Anakin, and most of those threads get closed.

Have you taken a single political class, and when did you become so smart in politics, considering your young age, I have a hard time believing you know really anything about politics. What political classes have you taken, what books have you read that would even lead me to believe you have any basic understanding of geo political economics or gerrymandering in districts.

What do you know about biennial sessions of congress, and who that affects, what do you know about sine die? Or extraordinary sessions or special sessions? What is a council manager form, or extraterritorial jurisdiction?

Quick, google all of it so you look half way smart, and not just completely embarrassed.

And no, you have not worked for anyone at 18 other then sonic and burger king.

Where you go Ellimist???

It's Deja Vu, Rudy. There's a glitch!

He logged off, tucked his tale and ran.

I swear, he and I have gone back and forth over this stuff alot over the years, since he was like, 12. I've actually said more or less what you did about his age:arrogance ratio. I know you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum but it's neat how we've said pretty much the same thing independently at different times about the same kid.




http://media.tumblr.com/f69db14d3d3dade90bf9a8e70a23bc9a/tumblr_inline_n1827c7PPt1qgp297.gif

cheers

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You have yet to have any high level political discussion, its only a smug act. The only discussion you have is Bane vs Anakin, and most of those threads get closed.

Have you taken a single political class, and when did you become so smart in politics, considering your young age, I have a hard time believing you know really anything about politics. What political classes have you taken, what books have you read that would even lead me to believe you have any basic understanding of geo political economics or gerrymandering in districts.

What do you know about biennial sessions of congress, and who that affects, what do you know about sine die? Or extraordinary sessions or special sessions? What is a council manager form, or extraterritorial jurisdiction?

Quick, google all of it so you look half way smart, and not just completely embarrassed.

And no, you have not worked for anyone at 18 other then sonic and burger king.

I don't think you get it.

Whether or not I know very much about politics (as a formerly nationally ranked competitive debater), you're so mentally inept that I don't need to - you just make so many elementary logical fallacies and cognitive gaffes in everything you say that its stupidity opens on itself.

Case in point: you continued to insist that Trump had won the first debate in the court of public opinion by citing a bunch of online polls that let people vote as many times as they wanted. Then I presented you with actual, scientific polls - and you just couldn't wrap your head on why they were better. The basic tenants of the scientific method were literally too complex for you to understand.

Since you continue to act like a prick, why don't I show everyone your history paper? I mean, you're a political science major, English is your first language, and you denied to say that you have any sort of dyslexia or related condition, and yet here is an actual, university paper you claimed to have written:

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Essay on Doctrine of Discovery.

Doctrine of Discovery or ‘DoD’ is the concept of how new land was discovered in the early 1600-1800’s, it is how land was apportioned and what rights of that land went to who and how in the New World.

When land was discovered, Doctrine of Discovery was used to apportion land to the which person, or nation made the claim to the land. When challenges to land were made, DoD was used to determine who had the rights to land. Because the new world indigenous people were not Christian, they had no rights to the land. As with anything in life, first discovery is sort of like finders keepers in today’s life. The first person to discover the land is the owner. The discoverer gained property rights and all rights associated with that land. In order for first discovery to be legal and lawful was the first nation that discovered it had to occupy and possess the land. The nation of first discovery also had the right of preemption which prevented other European nations to purchase the land.

4 more paragraphs to go.

This is honestly one of the worst productions of the human language I have ever seen. It's just awful.

Now, I don't know why you keep saying that I'm eighteen. But I am in college; and I do have some credentials that would blow yours completely out of the water. I'm a much bigger name in my field than you are in yours, I'll tell you that. Let me tell you a little secret: your experience doesn't mean shit outside of how it actually makes you better. You may have a decent amount of years of experience in intaking oxygen, but it isn't apparent to anyone here what else you bring to the table.


But go on believing otherwise.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I swear, he and I have gone back and forth over this stuff alot over the years, since he was like, 12. I've actually said more or less what you did about his age:arrogance ratio. I know you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum but it's neat how we've said pretty much the same thing independently at different times about the same kid.




http://media.tumblr.com/f69db14d3d3dade90bf9a8e70a23bc9a/tumblr_inline_n1827c7PPt1qgp297.gif

Is it arrogance if it's true?

Hewhoknowsall

Thanks for proving my point, you literally know jack shit about anything. I see nothing wrong with that thesis, I really don't care if you don't like it. You are not a teacher or a professor.

You can keep referencing my rough draft of one paragraph that I typed up in 2 minutes, but it does not prove anything. Its called a rough draft, getting ideas on paper, what would you know about that?

Good dodge on the rest

Go ahead and explain how those "scientific polls" were taken since you seem to know what they are.

Also a person winning or losing is personal opinion, not based on "science"

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Is it arrogance if it's true? Yup. It's still arrogance even if it's untrue, you're oblivious to the fact, and you think that eloquence and vocabulary hides your ostentatious vainglory.

I thought I was Dolos.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I see nothing wrong with that thesis,

Wow, you are completely f*cking delusional.

In either case, your reply is the perfect example: you didn't actually respond to anything that I said. Because you can't. EDIT: wow, as usual, you then make some meager edits to your post.

And no, I'm not impressed that you could memorize some terms in your political science classes, while clearly failing to actually understand anything, as evidenced by the drivel with which you've been spamming these forums. I could do your masters in my sleep. Could you skip all but three classes in partial differential equations and then earn the highest grade on the exam that the professor had ever seen? No? Interesting.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yup. It's still arrogance even if it's untrue, you're oblivious to the fact, and you think that eloquence and vocabulary hides your ostentatious vainglory.

I don't see how I'm oblivious; I don't deny that I'm arrogant on internet forums, just like how you presumably don't deny that you're a rhetorical smart*ss. The ethical difference is pretty null.

new page

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Go ahead and explain how those "scientific polls" were taken since you seem to know what they are.


They don't let people vote an infinite amount of times, for starters.



Then why did you cite polls?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I thought I was Dolos.



Wow, you are completely f*cking delusional.


Again, I guess you dont know what putting ideas down on a rough draft means, how fcking delusional are you?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
They don't let people vote an infinite amount of times, for starters.



Then why did you cite polls?

I cite the most accurate polls in 2004, 2008 and 2012 which was the IBD/TIPP poll. Seriously, you have a learning disability, I have said this over and over.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I thought I was Dolos.



Wow, you are completely f*cking delusional.

In either case, your reply is the perfect example: you didn't actually respond to anything that I said. Because you can't. EDIT: wow, as usual, you then make some meager edits to your post.

And no, I'm not impressed that you could memorize some terms in your political science classes, while clearly failing to actually understand anything, as evidenced by the drivel with which you've been spamming these forums. I could do your masters in my sleep. Could you skip all but three classes in partial differential equations and then earn the highest grade on the exam that the professor had ever seen? No? Interesting.

This is how dumb you are "Hewhoknowsall." You spend all your time on here trying to challenge me, who you deem as "intellectually inferior," yet that only goes to show how dumb you really are.

Have you ever heard the term "who's the fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool" I would think you would have heard that since it was Obi-Wan. But go ahead and keep going with your "I am superior to you cos you don't believe in scientific polls."

I have asked you on multiple occasions to explain how those scientific debate polls were taking.

You never were able to come up with an answer. Also I would not believe a single thing CNN says. So your whole "you dont believe the polls makes you dumb" is just a stupid argument.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

I have asked you on multiple occasions to explain how those scientific debate polls were taking.

1. They don't let people vote an infinite number of times, like yours do.
2. They compare sample and population demographics and weight results accordingly.
3. They go in-depth with respect to how the respondents answer particular questions.
4. Their conclusions are corroborated in the betting markets and post-debate poll shifts.

Your move.

IBD does not

Keep lying, keep crying.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I cite the most accurate polls in 2004, 2008 and 2012 which was the IBD/TIPP poll. Seriously, you have a learning disability, I have said this over and over.

You cited Rasmussen as the most accurate poll in 2012, while linking to an article that literally picked it out as being one of the least accurate. This is basically you.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
IBD does not

Keep lying, keep crying.

WTF does this have to do with debate polls?

You can't even follow a train of thought properly.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Again, I guess you dont know what putting ideas down on a rough draft means, how fcking delusional are you?

Give me 180 seconds and I can write a better paper than that.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
WTF does this have to do with debate polls?

You can't even follow a train of thought properly.

Clown.

"A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers
calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with
a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".'

Gee no wonder Trump lost the "scientific poll"

It was over sampled, and you like a moron believed it

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Clown.

"A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers
calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with
a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".'

Gee no wonder Trump lost the "scientific poll"

It was over sampled, and you like a moron believed it

Another epic fail from you: the ratio of voters who said Hillary won : democrats reported is much higher than the opposite, .i.e., Hillary won in that poll even when you adjust for the bolded sampling skew.

And what does this have to do with the IBD poll that you cited?

So no, you still lose.

No you

Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to pro

Deal with your epic loss.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Another epic fail from you: the ratio of voters who said Hillary won : democrats reported is much higher than the opposite, .i.e., Hillary won in that poll even when you adjust for the bolded sampling skew.

And what does this have to do with the IBD poll that you cited?

So no, you still lose.

The IBD is the most accurate poll in all the elections, how many effing times do I have to say that?? JFC what the hell is your problem, its like you are just trolling to fcking troll.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No you

Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to pro

Deal with your epic loss.

*sigh* Let me spell this out for you.

Hillary Clinton won 54% of the self-identified independents in that poll. In other words, if we get rid of the sampling bias and just look at essentially undecided voters, Hillary still won.

Likewise, she won a greater percentage of Democrats than Trump did Republicans.

So the "over sampling" doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The IBD is the most accurate poll in all the elections, how many effing times do I have to say that?? JFC what the hell is your problem, its like you are just trolling to fcking troll.

We were talking about debate polls, not election polls. You're clearly confused.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
*sigh* Let me spell this out for you.

Hillary Clinton won 54% of the self-identified independents in that poll. In other words, if we get rid of the sampling bias and just look at essentially undecided voters, Hillary still won.

Likewise, she won a greater percentage of Democrats than Trump did Republicans.

So the "over sampling" doesn't matter.

Nice so you pulled that out of your ass cause thats not what I quoted.

CNN/ORC Methodology

METHODOLOGY
A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers
calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described
themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with
a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".

Originally posted by The Ellimist
We were talking about debate polls, not election polls. You're clearly confused.

Im talking about two different polls, its you who is confused..smh..dude you are not that smart, and you just keep strawmaning to try and get the upper hand. Get over yourself

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I don't see how I'm oblivious; I don't deny that I'm arrogant on internet forums, just like how you presumably don't deny that you're a rhetorical smart*ss. The ethical difference is pretty null. Oh don't worry about it, there's no ethics involved. All I'm saying is, you'll do a better job at convincing people you're really smart and wise if you conduct yourself with a little grace, a little subtlety, and a touch more self-deprecating humour. It can sting to do, but in the end more people will believe you and listen to you.


Pretty much no one here above your age group thinks much of you and that's mostly due to your attitude. Do a 180 on that, reassess your public persona, and you'll start raking in the kudos from all the other smug internet c*nts who think way too goddamn highly of themselves. C*nts like me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nice so you pulled that out of your ass

Actually I just bothered to read the data instead of just the introduction.

Page 9 shows that Hillary won independents 54 vs. 33, and a greater share of Democrats than she lost Republicans. This means that even if you adjust for the number of democrats over-sampled, she still won.

Nice strawman, I didnt quote the intro

also

http://truthfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Cpw8guDVMAAUBaU-1024x614.jpg

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Actually I just bothered to read the data instead of just the introduction.

Page 9 shows that Hillary won independents 54 vs. 33, and a greater share of Democrats than she lost Republicans. This means that even if you adjust for the number of democrats over-sampled, she still won.

Yea am really going to believe CNN cause "they said so"

Keep dreaming, when you wake up in your 40's and you realize how wrong you were all your life, you will get it.

The only reason you are so pro CNN and Hillary, is cause CNN now is free main stream indoctrination. And Hillary is your candidate, cause your parents are liberal democrats who were raised on CNN and liberal lies their whole life and you can't break ranks

You cant name 10 reasons and policies Hillary has that will help america

Go ahead, and try to name how she is going to help America, cause I have about 75,000 emails that prove otherwise.

What you dont get is Hillary is a neo con You been fooled thinking she is a liberal democrat!

And all you people who are voting for her are voting for a ultra conservative that is going to destroy America.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh don't worry about it, there's no ethics involved. All I'm saying is, you'll do a better job at convincing people you're really smart and wise if you conduct yourself with a little grace, a little subtlety, and a touch more self-deprecating humour. It can sting to do, but in the end more people will believe you and listen to you.


Pretty much no one here above your age group thinks much of you and that's mostly due to your attitude. Do a 180 on that, reassess your public persona, and you'll start raking in the kudos from all the other smug internet c*nts who think way too goddamn highly of themselves. C*nts like me.
What nonsensical rubbish advice. Why would someone want to stop acting like a c*nt if they aspire to be a c*nt in a forum full of c* nts? Stop

You f*cking c*nt alrite I'll stop c*nting around show you. the f*ck who do yu think i am you smegma enthusiast?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
All I'm saying is, you'll do a better job at convincing people you're really smart and wise if you conduct yourself with a little grace, a little subtlety, and a touch more self-deprecating humour. It can sting to do, but in the end more people will believe you and listen to you.


I've considered going the you/Tempest route and becoming a smart allic, but I don't think I want to. Believe it or not, my primary interests for this forum are debate, Star Wars/some other things, and some posters I like. That's why I humor even TI with debates.



Tempest is basically the only person outside of my age group on the forum I frequent anyway, and he's a high opinion of my debating ability, as does practically everyone else (some people accuse me of trolling, but admit that I'm good when I want to be). Regardless, it's a neat rhetorical trick to just make the empty claim that nobody likes someone. Sort of fits your own style. mmm

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea am really going to believe CNN cause "they said so"


You believed them when they noted how many democrats there were. But now that I've owned you by actually looking at the numbers instead of reading the opening paragraph, you've backtracked from "the sample is biased!" to outright allegations of fraud.

Then the rest of your post was a nice attempt to pivot away from the poll that you so horribly misread.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nice strawman, I didnt quote the intro


How does this change my point? Whatever you quoted, if you look more carefully at the numbers, Hillary won among independents as well, so the sampling bias towards democrats is irrelevant.

This is an example of the logical fallacies I was talking about: the fact that you didn't quote the intro is a red herring and does nothing to change the fact that you didn't read the poll right.



Don't change the subject. Explain why the sampling bias towards democrats matters when Hillary also carried the independents in the sample.

"CNN said it so it must be true."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"CNN said it so it must be true."

You believed them. You noted that they reported lots of democrats. If they were just making up the data, why wouldn't they just make the numbers of democrats and republicans even?

Also, why do you automatically believe online polls?

Again, you're backtracking, and you know it.

I'm not. You believe anything CNN says. That's on you. You are incapable of understanding when you have been mislead.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm not. You believe anything CNN says. That's on you. You are incapable of understanding when you have been mislead.

If their results were just made up, why did you bother pointing out that there were lots of made-up democrats in the made-up sample? Why didn't you just claim that they were fake from the start?

You didn't claim that they were fake; you claimed that the sample was biased. Now that you've been owned on the latter, you're changing your tune to the former.

If you had any integrity or honesty, you'd just admit that you made a mistake.

I don't think I made a mistake I believe it was oversampled and it was prolly all a lie anyways.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I believe it was oversampled

I've explained this to you five times: the oversample doesn't matter because Hillary won among independents in the sample too. And she won a greater percentage (.i.e. adjusted for size) of democrats than she lost republicans.



This is a separate accusation. Why don't you admit that you made a mistake about oversampling, but that you still think your general point is right because the data was made up? That would make you sound a little bit mature, you know, since you're supposed to be older than me.

Like CNN telling us it's illegal to read the emails. Yea I believe everything they say

Maybe I was wrong about the oversampling?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

Maybe I was wrong about the oversampling?

You're so lacking in the basic integrity and maturity that you should have given that you keep bragging to me about your advanced age and "life experience", that you can't even just admit when you've made a trivial mistake. You've had to pretend to dodge and ignore my point for a page or so, and even now, all you can do is to phrase it as a question (unless if you edit your post again, like you always do).

Pathetic.

I literally just said maybe I was wrong and you write that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I literally just said maybe I was wrong and you write that?

You deliberately evaded me for a page and even then can only say "maybe?". There is no "maybe"; you were wrong.

Do you realize how dishonest you are, on top of being utterly lacking in any social graces or intellect?

And you are a Piece of shit, now what?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And you are a Piece of shit, now what?

How mature of you. Weren't you just bragging about being older?

Just say: "Sorry, I messed up, I was wrong." And then we can talk about your new position (that it's all a fraud).

Considering the crap you just said to me, you deserved it

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Considering the crap you just said to me, you deserved it

You still can't admit that you're wrong when you very obviously were. Who was just bragging about his age?

Im still trying understand why I am wrong, how about you back the **** off. Seriously you are annoying as shit. I'm reading the gd polls is that ok with you?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im still trying understand why I am wrong,

Then respond to my evidence for why you were wrong with a logical argument.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
*sigh* Let me spell this out for you.

Hillary Clinton won 54% of the self-identified independents in that poll. In other words, if we get rid of the sampling bias and just look at essentially undecided voters, Hillary still won.

Likewise, she won a greater percentage of Democrats than Trump did Republicans.

So the "over sampling" doesn't matter.

Ok you win

Originally posted by Gorilla
can all these trump and hillary threads be eliminated into one for each? this is literally spamming...
Pretty much.

I mean, is anyone shocked? Yeah, this guy comes off as an arrogant little shit whose parents didn't beat him enough as a child lol.

He's the type of kid everyone hates while at the same time thinking everyone loves him. I've known people who are more or less just like him.

Originally posted by riv6672
Pretty much.

I understand, I too hope we can get back to all the intellectually stimulating topics posted here on a daily basis that had nothing to do with politics.

Surely the people who keep pointing this out just have a doozy of a topic they want to post. I can't wait to see what these people come up with.

Hopefully something better than thinly veiled attempts at butt-hurt sarcasm.

But really, 5 even mediocre threads on various subjects is still better than 22 shitty threads all on the exact same subject. Just MHO.

Every thread you makes sucks

I actually like some of rivs threads.

Nice buddy fcker

Originally posted by riv6672
Hopefully something better than thinly veiled attempts at butt-hurt sarcasm.

But really, 5 even mediocre threads on various subjects is still better than 22 shitty threads all on the exact same subject. Just MHO.

I look forward to more topics about farting in bathtubs.

You know once you get Riv started he cant quit, he hates being challenged.

^^^Yeah, that feels SO good.

BTW, the IBD poll has Hillary in the lead now.

Cool, so she's in a slight lead, 2 weeks out..still within the margin of error.

Now you trust IBD?

I thought you said she was ahead by 12?

Oh man its fun watching you flip around like a cod out of water.

PS: Guess what, things are not getting better for her

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Cool, so she's in a slight lead, 2 weeks out..still within the margin of error.


Trump was in a slight lead in the poll and you took it seriously. Now, when Hillary is the one ahead, you don't, even though it's backed by almost every other conducted poll.



When did I say otherwise?



When did I say that?



You just are incapable of grasping basic statistics. Different polls will return different numbers; I rely on well conducted polling aggregates. It isn't very difficult to understand, at least for most people.



Math > your opinion.

Learn what words mean "Cool, so she's in a slight lead, 2 weeks out..still within the margin of error. "

Have you ever been polled? Thats a big no. Keep trusting the system, you just woke up and learned about it what a 3 days ago?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Learn what words mean "Cool, so she's in a slight lead, 2 weeks out..still within the margin of error. "

Have you ever been polled? Thats a big no. Keep trusting the system, you just woke up and learned about it what a 3 days ago?

Just as I suspected, you don't actually respond to my arguments but instead make two or three vague sentences, with an ad hominem to boot.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Trump was in a slight lead in the poll and you took it seriously. Now, when Hillary is the one ahead, you don't, even though it's backed by almost every other conducted poll.

Learn what words mean

"Cool, so she's in a slight lead, 2 weeks out..still within the margin of error"

Originally posted by The Ellimist
BTW, the IBD poll has Hillary in the lead now.
Good to know.