Lol of course Clinton won the CNN poll. CNN is the same place that when Trump was talking about profiling people they added the word "racial" into his quote to make it seem like he was talking about racial profiling.
Or of course you remember the Milwaukee riots and how the dead thugs sister was shown on CNN telling people to stop the violence. Except of course..CNN didn't show the second half of the clip, which told people to take the violence to the suburbs instead lol. But don't worry it only happened due to time constraints, I mean that extra 2 seconds of the clip was just TOO hard to fit into the broadcast.
They are deceitful little shits and at this point just aren't to be taken seriously anymore. So I find it hilarious that everywhere except on bias CNN Trump came out on top.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
That's one of the reason's I don't watch CNN anymore, when I was watching Squawk on the Street this morning, at the beginning they said many in the media think Hillary won, I just busted up laughing! Most of the media really is out there! wtf...
Also its nuts the media is trying to get everyone to vote, sure I'm for well educated people voting if they know what each person's idea's are and what they plan to do, but to have just anyone vote, just basing it on their feelings isn't bright.
__________________
The Word
Last edited by kevdude on Sep 27th, 2016 at 02:55 PM
What is scary is the way some people defended what CNN did. Essentially saying "well Trump IS racist so it's not wrong to let people know that".
So then by that logic every single story about Hilary should mention all her various lies.
I'm beginning to realize why Jon Stewart hated CNN so f*cking much.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Thanks for your helpful hint. But you are correct, personally I take polls with a grain of salt. I do find it amusing most of them apparently show people think Trump won.
We certainly have no reason to have any faith in CNN anymore, but then I find more and more I don't trust the media in general.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I do wish I could take these more seriously, because it would lift my hopes that Trump might win. But right now I still don't feel that way.
Surveys and polls are just another example of how we can be deceived.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I'm not saying their poll is inaccurate. I'm just saying no poll reflects how most Americans truly feel.
When I say I have no faith in CNN I just mean as a news network.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Just come out and say what you really are trying to say about stuff like the CNN poll. Are you claiming it represents what a majority of Americans believe?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Wait is your name a reference to the animorphs stuff.
If so
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
There seems to be something off about Hillary Clinton.
Even my non-US citizen girlfriend thinks something is fishy with Hillary Clinton. She thinks Hillary has some massive corruption and manipulation going on in the background. She doesn't like Trump so it is not as though she has a bias.
When I told her about the 2008 election and how severely she smeared Obama (bordering on indirect racism) and now she's acting like BFFs with Obama, that set my GF off to confirm she thinks there is some collab going on to get Hillary in office. She speculates that it was the time back in 2008 when Hillary conceded and then was given a Cabinet position as Secretary of State. Her logic goes like this:
1. Fierce campaigning against Obama.
2. Negotiation and concession to Obama.
3. Obama promises her a Cabinet position and a chance at the presidency after his two terms.
4. Obama pledges support in the background to make it happen.
5. Hillary agrees to it all.
Anyway, I think Trump lost that debate. At times, Hillary had her ass handed to her. But, overall, Trump lost the debate. Hillary did not win the debate, Trump lost it. Trump with this Trumpiness and stupidness caused him to lose. Here is how Trump lost: getting clearly pissed and agitated while Hillary remained mostly calm and looked like she had poise. She appeared to be the more mature one.
Honestly, Trump made several really good ****ing points. I absolutely loved it when Trump called Hillary out on her hypocritical and backstabby two-facedness when it came to her criticisms of Trump hating on Obama: she did it far far worse when she was running against Obama for president.
That's what the data suggests, given that a weighted aggregate of the polls predicts outcomes better than any other metric short of maybe betting markets.
It's empirical, I don't see why you're phrasing it so subjectively.
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
Educate me on the last part of that statement. I feel ignorant of your point about betting markets because from what I understand, human betting (gambling) outcomes are woefully random when statistically analyzed.
For example, sports betting was analyzed and found to be close to just a random stochastic process (like fliipping a coin):
(please log in to view the image)
I also feel that you're making a legit point and I am just ignorant of that point because of a gap in my understanding or knowledge.
Has this Silver person ever made an inaccurate prediction using stats?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I was really hoping when Hillary started to bring up that Trump didn't say Obama was born in the USA topic, I wanted Trump to say 'And you started that remember?". She gives him an open window to say that and he doesn't...
Hillary ranting out how workers should get a share of the profits, when thats not how it works, unless they negotiate it with their bosses, people want wages first mainly. Not understanding business at all smh.
It's not about winning or losing bets. It's about how bookies calculate odds and how they are very rarely wrong when they make one outcome longer or shorter odds than another.
At the moment most bookies have Clinton at 4/9 favourite with Trump at 2/1
Not to say that they don't get it wildly wrong on occasion. Almost every bookies had remain to win in the brexit referendum and were all wrong.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 27th, 2016 01:10 PM
