Originally posted by socool8520
I never read the full story on his death. Wasn't the driver going way too fast?
The lawsuit was grounded on the car being unsafe, particularly the seat belt which trapped him and he burned alive because of it.
Now I have no idea if that is true in regards to the Porsche Carrera GT, but unsafe specs is grounds for a wrongful death case. Porsche did settle in lieu of going to court.
tl;dr Kurk is being a retard again
Originally posted by RobtardIt's retarded b/c the daughter is only going after money. The coroner confirmed that the driver was going 100+ mph in a 35 zone on 10 year-old dry-rotted tires all while driving a hyper car well-known to be more challenging to handle than your average toyota highlander with lane-keep assist.
The lawsuit was grounded on the car being unsafe, particularly the seat belt which trapped him and he burned alive because of it.Now I have no idea if that is true in regards to the Porsche Carrera GT, but unsafe specs is grounds for a wrongful death case. Porsche did settle in lieu of going to court.
tl;dr Kurk is being a retard again
It's the equivalent of blaming the gun for mass-shootings. BS like this is why I'm slowly losing the will to live. Cars are becoming ever more regulated and this only adds to the storm.
Originally posted by Kurk
It's retarded b/c the daughter is only going after money. The coroner confirmed that the driver was going 100+ mph in a 35 zone on 10 year-old dry-rotted tires all while driving a hyper car well-known to be more challenging to handle than your average toyota highlander with lane-keep assist.It's the equivalent of blaming the gun for mass-shootings. BS like this is why I'm slowly losing the will to live. Cars are becoming ever more regulated and this only adds to the storm.
Okay, Kurk.
In unrelated news, was looking at a 2012 Crown Vic with under 30K miles. Good price too.
Originally posted by RobtardNever thought a californian would be interested in what's deemed by a good majority of people to be "a gas-guzzling, over-sized" car. But hey, at least we share a love for the panther platform. Hopefully they won't be banned by the time I'm old enough to buy one 🙂 .
Okay, Kurk.In unrelated news, was looking at a 2012 Crown Vic with under 30K miles. Good price too.
Originally posted by dadudemonAnd if the American people agree that Equifax should be sued, then we just need to determine by what margin Americans believe this. If it is greater than the margin that the polls had Trump losing (meaning, those same polls predicted Trump would lose but he won...so that margin was usually off by 2-5%), then we know the numbers are correct.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The polls were only off nationally by 2%.
What is your intent with this statement? Do you disagree with the numbers I put up?
Because some were off over 7.5%. My range of 2%-5% was to capture a majority that were off. If I wanted to mention an average, which would not make my point, I would have mentioned a national average number, like you did (which I could not verify: I could not prove what you posted).
For example, Wisconsin's polling was off by 6.5%.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305133-pollsters-suffer-huge-embarrassment
More poignantly:
Pollster John Zogby believes that many in the industry weighted their polls too heavily in favor of Democrats, pointing to polls that had an 8- to 9-point advantage for the party, when it should have been in the 4- to 5-point range, he said.
And to cover the polls:
WISCONSIN – off by 7+
Polls: Clinton +6.5 (46.8 – 40.3)
Results: TRUMP +1 (48 – 47)
IOWA – off by 7
Polls: Trump +3 (44.3 – 41.3)
Results: Trump +10 (52 – 42)
OHIO – off by 4+
Polls: Trump +3.5 (45.8 – 42.3)
Result: Trump +8 (52 – 44)
MICHIGAN – off by 4+
Polls: Clinton +3.4 (45.4 – 42)
Results: TRUMP +1 (48 – 47)
MINNESOTA – off by 3
Polls: Clinton +5 (45.3 – 40.3)
Results: Clinton +2 (47 – 45)
NEVADA – off by 3
Polls: Trump +0.8 (45.8 – 45)
Results: CLINTON +2 (48 – 46)
NEW MEXICO – off by 3
Polls: Clinton +5 (45.3 – 40.3)
Results: Clinton +8 (48 – 45)
NORTH CAROLINA – off by 3
Polls: Trump +1 (46.5 – 45.5)
Results: Trump +4 (51 – 47)
PENNSYLVANIA – off by 3
Polls: Clinton +1.9 (46.2 – 44.3)
Result: TRUMP +1 (49 – 48)
MAINE – off by 1+
Polls: Clinton +4.5 (44 – 39.5)
Resutls: Clinton +3 (48 – 45)
ARIZONA – off by 1
Polls: Trump +4 (46.3 – 42.3)
Results: Trump +5 (50 – 45)
COLORADO – off by 1
Polls: Clinton +2.9 (43.3 – 40.4)
Results: Clinton +2 (47 – 45)
FLORIDA – close
Polls: Trump +0.2 (46.6 – 46.4)
Result: Trump +1 (49 – 48)
GEORGIA – close
Polls: Trump +4.6 (48.4 – 43.8)
Results: Trump +5 (51 – 46)
NEW HAMPSHIRE – close
Polls: Clinton +0.6 (43.3 – 42.7)
Results: Clinton +1 (48 – 47)
VIRGINIA – correct
Polls: Clinton +5 (47.3 – 42.3)
Results: Clinton +5 (50 – 45)
And here are the predictions by pollsters:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Some have Clinton as high as +18 points.
What was my original point? My original point was we would need to show results that would very comfortably beat this polling error average in order for the distrusting American people to trust the results. My point of 2-5% was rather important: definitely have to beat that to instill confidence.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Why are you exclusively using the polls of battleground states? That's totally irrelevant when discussing what the national consensus is.
Why am I using the polls of states which prove the point I was making about how wrong the polls were?
And why did you overlook the portions I put in there about how far off the polls were for a national consensus (+18 points, at times) and then claim that my point was totally irrelevant when discussing the national consensus?
Gee, I don't know! Derpy dooo!
Now you know what I think you're just a troll. And why I should just ignore you again.