U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/2016-us-presidential-election-thread-part-x-220200.html)

DaveC 06-21-2016 08:33 PM

2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X
 
Trump Ice, LLC is open for business.

Headache in a Suitcase 06-21-2016 08:45 PM

https://youtu.be/gF8rlghyxJU

Irvine511 06-21-2016 09:51 PM

Just heard: "The GOP is seeking a late term abortion for Trump."

PhilsFan 06-21-2016 09:56 PM

I do hope that at some point BigMac stops making me feel embarrassed that I voted for Sanders.

Salome 06-22-2016 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilsFan (Post 8080355)
I do hope that at some point BigMac stops making me feel embarrassed that I voted for Sanders.

I think you have better odds hearing U2's Songs of Experience before the end of the month.

Mack_Again 06-22-2016 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilsFan (Post 8080355)
I do hope that at some point BigMac stops making me feel embarrassed that I voted for Sanders.

I never envisioned that BIgMac's rants would last this long.

Headache in a Suitcase 06-22-2016 05:12 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClglsQCVEAMrsBn.jpg

Oopsie dasies

Headache in a Suitcase 06-22-2016 09:34 AM

The Trump campaign, which has less than $2 million dollars left in its war chest, has spent $208,000 on hats.

BVS 06-22-2016 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase (Post 8080455)
The Trump campaign, which has less than $2 million dollars left in its war chest, has spent $208,000 on hats.

Can you imagine how much they would have cost if he bought hats from this decade? I'm pretty sure he just found a bunch of Made in China hats left over from the 90's.

BigMacPhisto 06-22-2016 11:27 AM

This study from some people at Stanford is starting to make the rounds. In state after state where there was no paper trail, Clinton crushed Sanders beyond what mathematical analysis of the given state would expect and the results were far off from the exit polling.

Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

Nobody has really taken issue with the data or conclusions yet, but it's agreed that there needs to be a lot more peer review.

BVS 06-22-2016 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto (Post 8080462)
This study weak paper from some people one undergrad student at Stanford and one from the Netherlands is starting to make the rounds on Twitter. And the results were off from the exit polling which we know is very flawed given the past several elections.

Fixed that for you.

It's becoming laughable what you consider a source, do you not read them yourselves beyond the headline?

BigMacPhisto 06-22-2016 01:42 PM

I read the entire thing like I always do. You're the one calling it a "weak" paper. The study itself pointed out the problems with exit polling but then went on to say that the difference in the exit polling and the actual results puts a highly likelihood on their being other factors at play.

There's undeniably a mathematical shift in expected support for Clinton whenever there's no paper trail left behind. Could very well be coincidence, but why isn't this something worth looking into?

iron yuppie 06-22-2016 01:54 PM

I don't really understand the furor over Hillary's supposed ties to Wall Street. Wall Street isn't inherently evil; I think it's fairly obvious that a strong financial sector is a cornerstone of any modern economy. The key is it has to be well-regulated; if not, it will run amok just like any other industry. If Hillary does have allies in the high levels of the financial sector, that could end up being a good thing in terms mitigating the moral hazard that so often plagues finance.

corianderstem 06-22-2016 02:02 PM

Oh, stop being rational, iYup. This thread is for fear mongering.

BVS 06-22-2016 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto (Post 8080475)
I read the entire thing like I always do. You're the one calling it a "weak" paper. The study itself pointed out the problems with exit polling but then went on to say that the difference in the exit polling and the actual results puts a highly likelihood on their being other factors at play.

There's undeniably a mathematical shift in expected support for Clinton whenever there's no paper trail left behind. Could very well be coincidence, but why isn't this something worth looking into?

The link you posted stated from the beginning that it's indeed not a study and from only one student from Stanford, so I wasn't sure how far you got.

Well it could be coincidence, OR it could be that non paper states are less liberal and diverse, they have no control on exit polls regarding these states, who's more likely to take an exit poll, etc, etc... You know real aspects of a study.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com