Trump goes on tear against media, not Clinton

[PTC]

4 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Gee, offended you have I, sorry but if you can dish it out, learn to take it.  It is not authority to say what is out of bounds, just an opinion, nor is it abuse  If you only knew the meanings of words before you use them then it might be a reasonable argument but it's evident you have no idea.

 

I also see that you have adopted the approach of the mainstream press and the Clinton campaign, where they take things out of context, twist words, add words, change it around to suit their agenda, or as a last resort, make it up.  As no abuse occurred, no apology forthcoming.

 

 

 

Not offended in the slightest. Your status is so insignificant that taking offense is not warranted. Again, you have no authority to declare anything out of bounds. Your continued delusion that your opinion is of any consequence is somewhat sad. Keep making it about me. Saves you the bother of making any sensible statement on the topic.

 

When will you apologize t the poster you abused?

[Si Thea01]

4 minutes ago, PTC said:

 

Not offended in the slightest. Your status is so insignificant that taking offense is not warranted. Again, you have no authority to declare anything out of bounds. Your continued delusion that your opinion is of any consequence is somewhat sad. Keep making it about me. Saves you the bother of making any sensible statement on the topic.

 

When will you apologize t the poster you abused?

 

 

You are clearly suffering from is NPD.  Just have to read the posts, stands out a mile. You are also being tediously repetitive  to the point of being ad nauseam.     

 

[PTC]

4 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

You are clearly suffering from is NPD.  Just have to read the posts, stands out a mile. You are also being tediously repetitive  to the point of being ad nauseam.     

 

 

Have no idea of what NPD is when it is at home and neither I nor I imagine most readers care since it is clearly a person insult. Intellectually bankrupt posters retreat to personal insults, also sometimes called ad hominem (since you seem to like misusing latin phrases) when they have nothing else to say.

 

Nothing about Trump, Clinton or the media? Guess not.

 

You may also want to sort out your use of adverbs and nouns, no matter the language.

 

When will you apologize for your abuse of the other poster?

[ilostmypassword]

Well, the evil liberal snopes.com writes that while the church has Tony Perkins as its intermim head, it doesn't seem that it's going to the Family Research Council but rather to flood relief. It also says it hasn't received confirmation from the Trump campaign that the donation has actually  been made.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-donated-100k-la/

However, Snopes.com does confirm that it is true that God is punishing Tony Perkins for his anti-LGBQT activities.  God has also apologized to all the millions of innocent bystanders but she says in cases like this collateral damage is unavoidable.  There are unconfirmed reports that she is currently charging up some lightning bolts destined for a church picnic in Iowa. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[boomerangutang]

On 8/24/2016 at 3:10 AM, slipperylobster said:

How devastating !   BBC (lol).   

One lady agrees with the interviewer and their case is made...done for the day.

Who cares what the BBC has to say about our elections...???

 

You prove my point.  Every news media, domestic US and foreign, are reporting on Trump using his own words.  Most are concluding what a disaster he would be for the US.   Predictably, Trump and his sheeple are hating each news service in turn, one after the other.  What news media is left that Trumpsters don't hate?

[Scott]

Continuing to post news articles in the thread will result in suspension.  There is an OP and that is what to be discussed.   Attempts to get around the rules and derail the topic is not going to cut it.

 

You have been warned.  

 

 

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, slipperylobster said:

Yes. A big mouth.....but one that can keep secrets...unlike your Queen Superstar..."Hillary" You know...the pant suited lady...that broadcasts out National Secrets to anyone with a laptop. 

 

Are you insinuating that Trump can keep secrets?   Come on, that's got to be a joke.  Look at half of what he's said on the stump in the past year.  He asked the Russians to look at a private US citizen's email and publish results.  He's said the US military is in the pits.  If he had more details of the US military, he would reveal those details also - in order to reinforce his point.  Incidentally, All US top brass agree that the US military is the strongest in the world.  Trump is the only person shouting that it's completely messed up.  That's an affront to Americans in uniform and the millions of people that supply them.  The average US soldier costs US taxpayers $850,000 per year.  If in Afghanistan, the cost is $2.1 million/yr.   Trump thinks that's much too low and wants to dramatically increase outlays for the military.    In comparison, the average Chinese soldiers costs under $1,500/year and half of that is for a rifle. 

 

Each US family will spend/owe and average of $75,000 each to support the US military in its forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.  That includes the billions in added payments which drag on for many years after a serviceperson's retirement or death.   Perhaps in Trump's defense (for increasing defense spending astronomically):  Both Romney and Ryan wanted to increase military spending. Count on Republicans to campaign to increase spending taxpayers money.   Trump;  "i'm really great with debt."   Yea, we believe you, on that.  You'll take an already crippling national debt and jack it up beyond the stratosphere.  Everything Trump's done in the past 40 years relied on debt, and most of the time he didn't pay back what he owed.

[Si Thea01]

CNN just released a new poll showing Trump has a 5 point lead, 43 to 38 in Arizona.  It also reported that the Clinton campaign has gone into damage control over the Clinton foundation's alleged involvement in the pay for play incident with the State Department.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Neurath]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

To (sic) far to the right? 

Way too far to the Right for my liking also. Hillary Clinton would need to run to the right of Nixon on most issues and also to the right of Johnson. She runs to the right of herself when needed and that I'm not overly keen on. Still, an election is always about the lesser of two weevils and Trump is the bigger grub.

 

The propensity to continually whine about media portrayals used to be the almost exclusive province of Left, it's now a an integral part of Right wing identity. Persecuted by the media. How things change. Is this because the solid center of sensible America, it's dependable and  Pragmatic non-extremist heart, was not with the left as they are now not with the right? Hence the screams then and the screams now.

 

Anyway, all talk of Left and Right has lost much if not most of it's historical meaning these days. To the point where they're pretty meaningless.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

CNN just released a new poll showing Trump has a 5 point lead, 43 to 38 in Arizona.  It also reported that the Clinton campaign has gone into damage control over the Clinton foundation's alleged involvement in the pay for play incident with the State Department.

Wow. She's losing in Arizona!.  I just hope that the same can't be said of Alabama!

[Boon Mee]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wow. She's losing in Arizona!.  I just hope that the same can't be said of Alabama!

Heh...see Florida lately? 

[Si Thea01]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wow. She's losing in Arizona!.  I just hope that the same can't be said of Alabama!

 

No comment on how she is in damage control over the foundation and the allegations of pay for play? 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Si Thea01]

8 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Heh...see Florida lately? 

 

They won't mention that, doesn't run with the agenda.  However, give it time and someone will come up with something as to why it isn't relevant or it's a poll done by right wing nuts.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Chicog]

That poll must have made you very happy. It brought Clinton's average lead down to about 6%.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

They won't mention that, doesn't run with the agenda.  However, give it time and someone will come up with something as to why it isn't relevant or it's a poll done by right wing nuts.

Fivethirtyeight.com rates that polling organization as a C+.  Not a good rating. There was recently a poll taken in Virginia that showed Hillary Clinton 16 points ahead.  But since that pollster was given a "C" I didn't think it merited mention.  Apparently I'm not as desperate as some posting here.

 

Here's fivethirtyeights pollster evaluation page and also their page for explaining their methodology.  

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-calculates-pollster-ratings/

 

If you like, I could send you an excel spreadsheet I did  of it which organizes the pollsters alphabetically, something that fivethirtyeight didn't do.

[Si Thea01]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Fivethirtyeight.com rates that polling organization as a C+.  Not a good rating. There was recently a poll taken in Virginia that showed Hillary Clinton 16 points ahead.  But since that pollster was given a "C" I didn't think it merited mention.  Apparently I'm not as desperate as some posting here.

 

Here's fivethirtyeights pollster evaluation page and also their page for explaining their methodology.  

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-calculates-pollster-ratings/

 

If you like, I could send you an excel spreadsheet I did  of it which organizes the pollsters alphabetically, something that fivethirtyeight didn't do.

 

I knew it wouldn't take long, two already.  Thanks for the offer but no thanks.

[Si Thea01]

33 minutes ago, Chicog said:

That poll must have made you very happy. It brought Clinton's average lead down to about 6%.

 

 

 

It is great to see you contribute but why no comment about Hilary?  And the lead, with 76 days to go, imight just disappear and be reversed, as could be the case with HC, if the pay for play matter gets any murkier which, given what CNN is reporting, might just happen.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I knew it wouldn't take long, two already.  Thanks for the offer but no thanks.

If ignorance is bliss you must be a very happy person.

[Si Thea01]

19 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If ignorance is bliss you must be a very happy person.

 

Happiness is bliss.  Sure am and I don't even have to get personal.   

[Si Thea01]

Here's a rumour that has just been put over an Australian radio programme.  Come October Wikileaks has stated that it intends to release a hell of a lot more on HC. 

 

It was also stated that of over a hundred + persons having spoken to HC before she became Secretary of State, and were given access to the State Department, 85 of them ended up contributing to HC's foundation?  The second aspect is a news report, not rumour. 

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

It is great to see you contribute but why no comment about Hilary?  And the lead, with 76 days to go, imight just disappear and be reversed, as could be the case with HC, if the pay for play matter gets any murkier which, given what CNN is reporting, might just happen.

 

I was responding to someone commenting on a specific poll.
 

Why should I add an unnecessary comment about Hillary just because you want one?

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Heh...see Florida lately? 

 

Yep.

 

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

Here's a rumour that has just been put over an Australian radio programme.  Come October Wikileaks has stated that it intends to release a hell of a lot more on HC. 

 

It was also stated that of over a hundred + persons having spoken to HC before she became Secretary of State, and were given access to the State Department, 85 of them ended up contributing to HC's foundation?  The second aspect is a news report, not rumour. 

 

Here's a rumour

 

Thx for that. 

 

The second aspect especially.

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. So now we've jumped to your native Oz where you've apparently been caught flat on in Pauline Hanson's headlamps.

 

Wouldn't happen to have a link would we....providing a link is not quite posting a news article as I understand it. (Sort of like in a term paper.)

[Si Thea01]

32 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

I was responding to someone commenting on a specific poll.
 

Why should I add an unnecessary comment about Hillary just because you want one?

 

 

It's not because you won't comment, it's because you cannot.    I didn't want an answer, I only asked why you hadn't and it elicited an answer that shows everyone how selective you are.   

[Si Thea01]

44 minutes ago, Publicus said:

45 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Here's a rumour

 

Thx for that. 

 

The second aspect especially.

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. So now we've jumped to your native Oz where you've apparently been caught flat on in Pauline Hanson's headlamps.

 

Wouldn't happen to have a link would we....providing a link is not quite posting a news article as I understand it. (Sort of like in a term paper.)

Here's a rumour

 

Thx for that. 

 

The second aspect especially.

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. So now we've jumped to your native Oz where you've apparently been caught flat on in Pauline Hanson's headlamps.

 

Wouldn't happen to have a link would we....providing a link is not quite posting a news article as I understand it. (Sort of like in a term paper.)

 

 

It was an issue raised on the Steve Price show over radio 2GB.  I didn't check the time but it's only a three-hour show.  Shouldn't be too much trouble for a person of your calibre to locate it.  And Pauline Hanson's relevancy to this topic is?

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. 

 

What are you trying to say with this sentence?  It doesn't make sense in its current form, so if you made it  grammatically correct we'd all understand what you are trying to opinionate. 

 

[Publicus]

2 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

It was an issue raised on the Steve Price show over radio 2GB.  I didn't check the time but it's only a three-hour show.  Shouldn't be too much trouble for a person of your calibre to locate it.  And Pauline Hanson's relevancy to this topic is?

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. 

 

What are you trying to say with this sentence?  It doesn't make sense in its current form, so if you made it  grammatically correct we'd all understand what you are trying to opinionate. 

 

 

Do try to keep up plse thx.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

It was an issue raised on the Steve Price show over radio 2GB.  I didn't check the time but it's only a three-hour show.  Shouldn't be too much trouble for a person of your calibre to locate it.  And Pauline Hanson's relevancy to this topic is?

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. 

 

What are you trying to say with this sentence?  It doesn't make sense in its current form, so if you made it  grammatically correct we'd all understand what you are trying to opinionate. 

 

Easy enough to disentangle. What he's saying is that pollsters who use robopolling or solicit opinions through online polling are operating with a defective model.

[Neurath]

5 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Do try to keep up plse thx.

The gentleman even speaks like Pauline Hanson. I believe he just asked you to "please explain"

Poor little Australia led the way for white nativist and nationalist sentiment with Hanson 20 odd years ago. Our very own Donald J Trump greatly resembles her - especially in animosity toward the media when things don't go the right way. Hanson disappeared in the early 2000s and has only just now reappeared due to Australia's rather warped preference system in their Senate.

 

First as tragedy and the secondly as farce.

 

[Si Thea01]

8 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Do try to keep up plse thx.

Post 416

 

 

Is this just a coincidence or more. You and a second poster answered the same post some 8 hours ago; you replied as above, whilst he answered the question (below) that was put to you.   Now, being cynical I could justly assume that it is more than a coincidence when two, who are batting for the same side, just happen to be reading the post around the same time, respond around the same time, with their responses being recorded consecutively.

 

Another aspect that makes  the way you both responded seem dubious is that you evaded the question whilst the other answered what was put to you.  What are the odds of this occurring?  Two people reading the same article at the same time, responding at the same time., yet one evades and the other answers. The odds, a lot more than winning the lottery I would suggest.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Easy enough to disentangle. What he's saying is that pollsters who use robopolling or solicit opinions through online polling are operating with a defective model.

Post 417

Here is what I questioned.

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. 

 

I must thank you for your explanation, you're an absolute genius to have extrapolated your response from what he wrote, given that it appears he could not.  Brilliant Sir, brilliant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Post 416

 

 

Is this just a coincidence or more. You and a second poster answered the same post some 8 hours ago; you replied as above, whilst he answered the question (below) that was put to you.   Now, being cynical I could justly assume that it is more than a coincidence when two, who are batting for the same side, just happen to be reading the post around the same time, respond around the same time, with their responses being recorded consecutively.

 

Another aspect that makes  the way you both responded seem dubious is that you evaded the question whilst the other answered what was put to you.  What are the odds of this occurring?  Two people reading the same article at the same time, responding at the same time., yet one evades and the other answers. The odds, a lot more than winning the lottery I would suggest.

 

 

 

Post 417

Here is what I questioned.

 

All of which adds to the already presented to the thread robopolling and online poll opinionating in Florida. 

 

I must thank you for your explanation, you're an absolute genius to have extrapolated your response from what he wrote, given that it appears he could not.  Brilliant Sir, brilliant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was actually simple and obvious.  But given the general intellectual quality of your comments, I'm not surprised that you set the bar for genius so low.