For those voting for Hillary Clinton

[TurtleDude]

Ah, yes. If anything has impressed me about Donald Trump, it's how he listens carefully to the suggestions of others, rather than seeking to Make Great Deals, thinking that Only He can [insert whatever].


If GOP nominated Judges could be reliably trusted, you'd have half an argument. If Trump could be trusted when it came to nominating judges, you'd have the other half.

But right now, you've got only bits of two halves.

so tell me Cp. which judge would you think is MORE LIKELY to support the second amendment

one picked by Sherrod Brown who is a well known F rated senator by every gun group

one picked by Rob Portman who is far higher rated-for example, the most extreme of the pro gun groups is the GOA which rates Brown at 0% and Portman at 63%. He is an A from the NRA and endorsed by the group that actually matters the most in Ohio-the Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[cpwill]

so tell me Cp. which judge would you think is MORE LIKELY to support the second amendment

one picked by Sherrod Brown who is a well known F rated senator by every gun group

one picked by Rob Portman who is far higher rated-for example, the most extreme of the pro gun groups is the GOA which rates Brown at 0% and Portman at 63%. He is an A from the NRA and endorsed by the group that actually matters the most in Ohio-the Buckeye Firearms Association

Gosh. A Judge Souter, or a Judge Judy..... man. that's tough. The important thing, though, is making sure it's not the kind of judge who will tell me "No." I don't like hearing that word - and these judges (they're crazy, I tell you, awful, they really are) - they're always saying that. Anywho, so long as they don't tell me no. You know, on things like keeping these crazy terrorists from buying guns. It's crazy, I tell you.


You know, Mr Reid said something very nice about me on television the other day. I think I'll let him pick, he's a swell guy, it was very nice, what he said.





Again: You are assuming 1. that we can trust the GOP to pick good judges and 2. that we can trust Trump to listen to people and make wise choices. History has shown that both of those assumptions are deeply flawed.


And, again, ,3. This is hardly the only issue, or even the most important one.

 

[TurtleDude]

Gosh. A Judge Souter, or a Judge Judy..... man. that's tough.


You know, Mr Reid said something very nice about me on television the other day. I think I'll let him pick, he's a swell guy, it was very nice, what he said.

what I am seeing from your responses is

1) you really didn't understand how judges are selected

2) you don't like the fact that your position is being questioned on an issue you care about

 

[JC Callender]

I did indeed. You know what word isn't present in that sentence? "Impossible".

Hillary won the White House on May 3rd, when the GOP decided to ensconce for all time it's reputation as "The Stupid Party" by tossing the most winnable election (for them) in decades by nominating an insane moron with a talent for repelling women voters so strong you suspect it's his X-Men Mutant Ability. Everything since then has just been pro-forma waiting for the official counting.

Ok, so it looks like the election is still on and Hillary hasn't won. Now, one difference between you and I is that you assume that Trump voters are idiots, and I assume most Trump voters want someone who is outside of the status quo and isn't bought and paid for. Sure, he's unrefined, he insults people, and he's a womanizer. But many Americans would rather have 20 Trump gaffe's and insults over 1 Rubio "Today it's the Democrats, tomorrow it could be us", concerning Wikileaks.

 

[cpwill]

what I am seeing from your responses is

1) you really didn't understand how judges are selected

They are selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You are assuming that Trump has any interest whatsoever in doing what people advise him to do.

2) you don't like the fact that your position is being questioned on an issue you care about

Nope. Even if I could trust the GOP to pick good judges (which we can't), I couldn't trust Trump to make wise choices. Even if I could trust the GOP to pick good judges (which we can't), and we could trust Trump to make wise choices (excuse me for a second while I catch my breath - oh my sides), Judges positions on things like the 2nd Amendment (which Trump wants to curtail - odd you keep ignoring that) would be simply one issue of several, and not the most important.

 

[TurtleDude]

They are selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You are assuming that Trump has any interest whatsoever in doing what people advise him to do.



Nope. Even if I could trust the GOP to pick good judges (which we can't), I couldn't trust Trump to make wise choices. Even if I could trust the GOP to pick good judges (which we can't), and we could trust Trump to make wise choices (excuse me for a second while I catch my breath - oh my sides), Judges positions on things like the 2nd Amendment (which Trump wants to curtail - odd you keep ignoring that) would be simply one issue of several, and not the most important.

you're just ignoring what I told you because you don't like the facts.

So we are done here. You are trying to justify a silly position and you don't care about any facts that oppose your position

 

[cpwill]

Ok, so it looks like the election is still on and Hillary hasn't won.

No, as I said, she's won. Well, rather, she lost less, which makes her the "winner" by default. We're waiting for the pro forma counting, which will (barring extreme circumstances) confirm the May 3rd result that, while the Democrat party is old, tired, and out of fresh ideas, the Republican Party is ****ing stupid.

Now, one difference between you and I is that you assume that Trump voters are idiots, and I assume most Trump voters want someone who is outside of the status quo and isn't bought and paid for.

Let me put it this way. My opinion of the Trump voters is that they are the kind of people who are simplistic enough to believe that voting for Trump means that they will get someone outside the status quo who isn't bought and paid for.

Sure, he's unrefined, he insults people, and he's a womanizer.

Actually the real problems are that he's a moron, a narcissist, a big-government progressive, and a sexual predator. Calling him an unrefined womanizer is like saying that Hillary Clinton may have performed what some could perceive to be a questionable dealing at some point.

But many Americans would rather have 20 Trump gaffe's and insults over 1 Rubio "Today it's the Democrats, tomorrow it could be us", concerning Wikileaks.

"Many" is a fun word. It can mean practically anything (two? two hundred? two million? two hundred million?).

Unfortunately, "Many" does not mean "Most". When we look at how "Most" Americans would react to those two candidates, what we see is that Trump is losing the vital swing state of Florida, while Rubio is winning it so handily that the Democrat National Senate Committee has pulled all funding out of the state.

 

[cpwill]

you're just ignoring what I told you because you don't like the facts.

So we are done here. You are trying to justify a silly position and you don't care about any facts that oppose your position

On the contrary - I'm good with facts. I note that your assumptions are highly questionable, and not supported by history.

 

[TurtleDude]

On the contrary - I'm good with facts. I note that your assumptions are highly questionable, and not supported by history.

LOL, so you think Trump is going to pick the US attorneys and district judges for Ohio?

geez, what state do you live in-do you actually know any federal judges, appellate judges or US attorneys

 

[JC Callender]

No, they didn't - you are confusing being on the winning side with accuracy.

For example,

Poll A says that, this year, Hillary will win by 80 points, with 90% of the vote.
Poll B says that Trump will barely eke it out by 2% - a score of 47 to 45%

Actual results: Hillary, 48 to 45.

Poll A was on the winning side, but they were off by 42 points.
Poll B was on the losing side, but they were more accurate, as they were closer to the actual result.

Poll B is a better poll than Poll A.



No, it is a statistically demonstrable phenomenon, called the House Effect. Rasmsussens' methodology and approach lead it to consistently be inaccurate in favor of higher Republican numbers than actually occur.

If you'd bothered to read the link, you would know this. But you didn't.

...Our pollster ratings database also includes a couple of ways for you to track potential bias in the polls. The term bias itself refers to how much a polling firm’s results have erred toward one party or the other as compared against actual election results. House effect, by contrast, refers to how a firm’s results compare against other polls. If Pollster PDQ had the Democrat ahead by 5 points in an election where every other pollster had the race tied, it would have a Democratic house effect. But if the Democrat turned out to win by 10 points, PDQ would have a Republican bias as compared against the actual election results. As is the case for measures of poll accuracy, measures of bias and house effects can sometimes reflect statistical noise rather than anything systematic. But if they occur over dozens or hundreds of surveys, they should be a concern....​

Here's a quote from 538 that seems to debunk your argument along with an article that makes it clear that their process of judging pollsters really isn't all that clear:

Rasmussen’s election polling has tended to be quite accurate in the past. Nor, incidentally, has their election polling has a particularly strong house effect in the past; it is something new to the 2010 cycle. But that’s OK; each election cycle features different dynamics in terms of turnout and motivation, and what might be smart assumptions in one cycle won’t necessarily carry over to the next.
Is Rasmussen Reports Biased? | FiveThirtyEight

 

[JC Callender]

No, as I said, she's won. Well, rather, she lost less, which makes her the "winner" by default. We're waiting for the pro forma counting, which will (barring extreme circumstances) confirm the May 3rd result that, while the Democrat party is old, tired, and out of fresh ideas, the Republican Party is ****ing stupid.



Let me put it this way. My opinion of the Trump voters is that they are the kind of people who are simplistic enough to believe that voting for Trump means that they will get someone outside the status quo who isn't bought and paid for.



Actually the real problems are that he's a moron, a narcissist, a big-government progressive, and a sexual predator. Calling him an unrefined womanizer is like saying that Hillary Clinton may have performed what some could perceive to be a questionable dealing at some point.



"Many" is a fun word. It can mean practically anything (two? two hundred? two million? two hundred million?).

Unfortunately, "Many" does not mean "Most". When we look at how "Most" Americans would react to those two candidates, what we see is that Trump is losing the vital swing state of Florida, while Rubio is winning it so handily that the Democrat National Senate Committee has pulled all funding out of the state.

Really, who owns Trump and what is he doing that's status quo?

 

[cpwill]

Here's a quote from 538 that seems to debunk your argument, along with an article that makes it clear that their process of judging pollsters really isn't all that clear:

Rasmussen’s election polling has tended to be quite accurate in the past. Nor, incidentally, has their election polling has a particularly strong house effect in the past; it is something new to the 2010 cycle. But that’s OK; each election cycle features different dynamics in terms of turnout and motivation, and what might be smart assumptions in one cycle won’t necessarily carry over to the next.
Is Rasmussen Reports Biased? | FiveThirtyEight

Abraham Lincoln on a Pogo Stick - did the 2010 not leap out at you? This article identifies a new trend of a pro-GOP house effect with Rasmussen on January 3rd, 2010.

Rasmussen has been this way for years, first identified six years ago and continuing. Did you even read further in the article?

....there are other respects in which I’m much less sympathetic to Rasmussen’s case. In particular, this has to do with their choices of question wording and subject matter. The Politico question, for instance, points toward an August question in which Rasmussen asked “It’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.” That is not a question designed to elicit the most accurate reflection of public opinion.

Likewise, Rasmussen recently produced a poll in which they purported to describe the Democratic health care plan to their respondents. Several other pollsters have found that support for the plan increases when it is actually described to respondents, but Rasmussen showed no such increase. However, the second sentence in their description reads:

The plans before Congress would prohibit people from choosing insurance plans with lower premiums and higher deductibles.

I don’t particularly know where this comes from; Rasmussen claims that its questions came from a ‘summary of the legislation provided by the New York Times’, but such a depiction of the health care policy appears nowhere in the New York Times article. But there it is in the Rasmussen survey, where it appears to be designed to build a relationship in the respondent’s mind between the Democratic plan and higher premiums....​

Good night. First you screw up charts, then math, and now basic reading comprehension. Are you determined to personally prove the stereotypes about Trump voters correct?

 

[cpwill]

Really, who owns Trump

Wall Street Banks and Russia, not that it matters, because what Trump does is put Hillary Clinton in power.

and what is he doing that's status quo?

Nothing. Because he's putting Hillary Clinton in power. Who, ironically, if we can believe the Wikileaks, might be more open to the idea of actually changing our current status quo, and reforming entitlements.



Voting for Trump because you want to change the status quo and pick someone who isn't owned by anyone is like betting on a pig in the Kentucky Derby because you'd like to see a shorter horse win.

1. A pig isn't a horse.
2. He's not going to win the Kentucky Derby.

 

[JC Callender]

Abraham Lincoln on a Pogo Stick - did the 2010 not leap out at you? This article identifies a new trend of a pro-GOP house effect with Rasmussen on January 3rd, 2010.

Rasmussen has been this way for years, first identified six years ago and continuing. Did you even read further in the article?

....there are other respects in which I’m much less sympathetic to Rasmussen’s case. In particular, this has to do with their choices of question wording and subject matter. The Politico question, for instance, points toward an August question in which Rasmussen asked “It’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.” That is not a question designed to elicit the most accurate reflection of public opinion.

Likewise, Rasmussen recently produced a poll in which they purported to describe the Democratic health care plan to their respondents. Several other pollsters have found that support for the plan increases when it is actually described to respondents, but Rasmussen showed no such increase. However, the second sentence in their description reads:

The plans before Congress would prohibit people from choosing insurance plans with lower premiums and higher deductibles.

I don’t particularly know where this comes from; Rasmussen claims that its questions came from a ‘summary of the legislation provided by the New York Times’, but such a depiction of the health care policy appears nowhere in the New York Times article. But there it is in the Rasmussen survey, where it appears to be designed to build a relationship in the respondent’s mind between the Democratic plan and higher premiums....​

Good night. First you screw up charts, then math, and now basic reading comprehension. Are you determined to personally prove the stereotypes about Trump voters correct?

What does it say right under the 2010 sentence? It says, "But that's okay..." and then goes on to explain why it's not a big deal. As far as the rest of the article, it's opinions about whether or not Rasmussen decided to poll some people when this or that event was going on when this or that politician was in town. It's just an opinion.

 

[Grand Mal]

Really, who owns Trump and what is he doing that's status quo?

The Democratic Party is about to own him, partly because he doesn't satisfy enough of the requirements for attaining the White House. You may think that's a positive but it's a game, a game that's been played for a long time and Trump, for all he doesn't play the game, can't change the rules or boundaries all on his lonesome. If he could, you wouldn't be the USA, you'd be Italy or the Marxist-Leninist Party of Iceland or the student congress of Millard Fillmore High School in Des Moines, Iowa. Or something else that's unstable and no-one cares because it doesn't matter.

 

[JC Callender]

Wall Street Banks and Russia, not that it matters, because what Trump does is put Hillary Clinton in power.



Nothing. Because he's putting Hillary Clinton in power. Who, ironically, if we can believe the Wikileaks, might be more open to the idea of actually changing our current status quo, and reforming entitlements.



Voting for Trump because you want to change the status quo and pick someone who isn't owned by anyone is like betting on a pig in the Kentucky Derby because you'd like to see a shorter horse win.

1. A pig isn't a horse.
2. He's not going to win the Kentucky Derby.

Trump said in the debate that he didn't know Putin. Seems odd that he would say that in front of the world if Russia owned him. And what proof do you have that Wall Street banks own him, other than him possibly owing money like just about every other American adult does.

And if that's the status quo analogy you want to use, then that pig beat your horse?

 

[cpwill]

What does it say right under the 2010 sentence? It says, "But that's okay..." and then goes on to explain why it's not a big deal. As far as the rest of the article, it's opinions about whether or not Rasmussen decided to poll some people when this or that event was going on when this or that politician was in town. It's just an opinion.

[emoji14]inches bridge of nose: they are identifying a strong House Effect. Which continued. And resulted Rasmussen being less accurate. Pointing out that this was new in 2010 doesn't magically obviate it today.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[TheGoverness]

Trump said in the debate that he didn't know Putin. Seems odd that he would say that in front of the world if Putin owned him.

That's not odd at all. It's entirely plausible that he's just lying about that and behind closed doors he IS owned by Putin.

Why would Trump ever come out and say that he's owned by Putin publicly anyways? That'd be a pretty stupid move.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's not odd at all. It's entirely plausible that he's just lying about that and behind closed doors he IS owned by Putin.

Why would Trump ever come out and say that he's owned by Putin publicly anyways? That'd be a pretty stupid move.

why would hillary come out and say she's an agent for the PRC publicly, that would be a pretty stupid move.

 

[JC Callender]

[emoji14]inches bridge of nose: they are identifying a strong House Effect. Which continued. And resulted Rasmussen being less accurate. Pointing out that this was new in 2010 doesn't magically obviate it today.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

My take from the article is that 538 believes Rasmussen is relatively fair. Anyway, goodnight bro, I'm sure we'll be talking more about this soon.

 

[TheGoverness]

why would hillary come out and say she's an agent for the PRC publicly, that would be a pretty stupid move.

Eggs-actly. (I don't know if that's actually true or not.)

 

[JC Callender]

That's not odd at all. It's entirely plausible that he's just lying about that and behind closed doors he IS owned by Putin.

Why would Trump ever come out and say that he's owned by Putin publicly anyways? That'd be a pretty stupid move.

If someone owned you...controlled you, would you find it wise to make a point tell the world in a presidential debate that you don't know that person?

 

[TheGoverness]

If someone owned you...controlled you, would you find it wise to make a point tell the world in a presidential debate that you don't know that person?

Um...yeah. That's why Hillary doesn't go around telling everyone how she's owned by Goldman Sachs and other corporate interests.

 

[cpwill]

My take from the article is that 538 believes Rasmussen is relatively fair. Anyway, goodnight bro, I'm sure we'll be talking more about this soon.

You are citing an article from 538 in 2010, noting the beginning of a trend of Rasmussen becoming more biased in favor of the GOP, to argue against 538's point that that trend has continued through 2016.

Everyone gets their own opinion. We don't get our own facts.

Peace, man. TTY evening of November 8, no doubt.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Um...yeah. That's why Hillary doesn't go around telling everyone how she's owned by Goldman Sachs and other corporate interests.

LOL they need to hang a tag on her jacket saying that.