Hyperqube Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 You are right. Bernie is running against Hillary, and so far, Bernie is losing. Trump is running against Rubio and Cruz, and so far, Trump is winning. ... What matters are the results (so far). Here's what you argue: if NASA makes a $100 000 rocket and it fails and if I can make a lego train for $10 win in a lego competition ... my investment was better then that of NASAYes it was ... but that doesn't matter one iota ... it doesn't make my train better then the rocket! If you wanna argue the results matter - then you should look at REAL results. When you pit the rocket against the train: FOX News: Sanders +15 (Margin of error 3.0) --> sanders wins Quinnipiac: Sanders +6 (Margin of error 2.7) --> sanders wins USA Today/Suffolk: Trump +1 (Margin of error 3.0) --> a tie PPP: Sanders +4 (Margin of error 2.7) --> sanders wins --- post #46Or, if you think it's gonna be Hillary's gonna win: FOX News: Clinton +5 (Margin of error 3.0) --> Hillary wins Quinnipiac: Clinton +1 (Margin of error 2.7) --> a tie USA Today/Suffolk: Trump +2 (Margin of error 3.0) --> a tie PPP: Clinton +7 (Margin of error 2.8) --> Hillary wins --- RealPolitics.comTHAT is when you compare apples with apples. And THAT is why I said that Jeb would have been a better example: because Donand Actually BEAT jeb, while Jeb spend A LOT of money. Are you implying that the voters (420000 of them) are voting for Trump because of populist positions, fear mongering and playing the crowd?No, I'm saying it's not an insult to attribute human behavior to U.S. citizen. Do you perhaps feel U.S. citizen are subhuman? or superhuman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utsoob Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 garbage.txt If you wanna argue the results matter - then you should look at REAL results. When you pit the rocket against the train: moregarbage.txt No, I'm saying it's not an insult to attribute human behavior to U.S. citizen. Do you perhaps feel U.S. citizen are subhuman? or superhuman? Alright, listen here mate. Just because Denial is a hard thing to understand, doesn't mean you just get to continue to come on here and keep spewing your trash all over. Bernie is a sinking ship, and his polls are dropping harder. Your "real data "is out of date and you need to get your head out of your ass and realize that time has moved on from weeks ago, and get some data from the present. Real results show that Trump is beating the shit of the rest of the republican candidates. Real results show that Hillary is turning Bernie Sanders into a example on why the constant appeals to a younger than 18 audience who can't even vote, and some dumbass with a video game icon who can't even speak English, doesn't work. Real results show that your position is toast and that although you try your hardest to pull some BS about the margin of error, you cannot see the error in those statements. You say you are comparing apples to apples, but in comparison this is like grapes to watermelons. Bernie has received MILLIONS from his supporters, corporate or private citizen. Many of whom do the exact same thing that you do, spewing out old polls and disbelief, and what does he have to show for it? A loss, a win, a loss, and a blow out. Here's Trumps showing: Second place showing against NINE OTHER CANDIDATES, a Win, A blow out win, and another Win and even Hillary's: A Win, A Loss, another Win, and a Huge win If ANYTHING that could be said about comparisons, Bernie Sanders is as close to that foolish guac bowl merchant as you could get. The average U.S. citizen is not subhuman nor are they Superhuman. But they are human, and they are choosing a better candidate than Sanders ever will be, and one which a better return to boot. Now get the fuck outta here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkle Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Here's what you argue: if NASA makes a $100 000 rocket and it fails and if I can make a lego train for $10 win in a lego competition ... my investment was better then that of NASAYes it was ... but that doesn't matter one iota ... it doesn't make my train better then the rocket! "Apples and oranges" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Just because Denial is a hard thing to understand, doesn't mean you just get to continue to come on here and keep spewing your trash all over.... there's a certain irony in you telling me this. Bernie is a sinking ship, and his polls are dropping harder.Source? Real results show that Trump is beating the shit of the rest of the republican candidates. Real results show that Hillary is turning Bernie Sanders into a example on why the constant appeals to a younger than 18 audience who can't even vote,I don't think there's anyone here claiming he's not the front runner of the republican primairy Nor do I think there's anyone here claiming Bernie's behind in the polls to Hillary. Real results show that your position is toast and that although you try your hardest to pull some BS about the margin of error, you cannot see the error in those statements. You say you are comparing apples to apples, but in comparison this is like grapes to watermelons.The term "statisitcal tie" is used to refer to the situation where one candidate leads another candidate but that lead is within the margin of error. That's not "BS" - that's english. "Apples and oranges"Exactly my point: it's not because one wins (or is winning) in one race, and one loses (or is losing) in an other race, the first is inherently better then the other. When competing for best fruit, the second best apple is not necessarily worse then the best orange. It is simplified in "lego train vs NASA missle", but it's quite litterly visible in current day polling: it is not because Bernie is losing in the democratic primairy, and Trump is winning in the republican primairy, that Bernie would lose from Trump. And even more contra-intuitive, he'd win easier from Trump then Hillary would (most likely because he'd get more independant voters then Hillary would) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkle Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Exactly my point: it's not because one wins (or is winning) in one race, and one loses (or is losing) in an other race, the first is inherently better then the other. When competing for best fruit, the second best apple is not necessarily worse then the best orange. It is simplified in "lego train vs NASA missle", but it's quite litterly visible in current day polling: it is not because Bernie is losing in the democratic primairy, and Trump is winning in the republican primairy, that Bernie would lose from Trump. And even more contra-intuitive, he'd win easier from Trump then Hillary would (most likely because he'd get more independant voters then Hillary would) No, not your point. Your NASA and Lego comparison makes no sense because one is totally different from the others and totally irrelevant to anything political. Youre really just stretching for something to use for comparisons now because your argument points are getting shot down right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 No, not your point. Your NASA and Lego comparison makes no sense because one is totally different from the others and totally irrelevant to anything political. An analogy is a comparison in which an idea or a thing is compared to another thing that is quite different from it. It aims at explaining that idea or thing by comparing it to something that is familiar. As my point was that it's not because one wins (or is winning) in one race, and one loses (or is losing) in an other race, the first is inherently better then the other; the analogy holds up. If you're unable to see that, that is not my problem. Youre really just stretching for something to use for comparisons now because your argument points are getting shot down right away. No. I'm stretching things so far, because if I don't, experience has thought me that some people just don't get it. So ... Do you UNDERSTAND that, it's not because a lego train wins, and a NASA rocket loses, that that doesn't make the train better then the rocket? Do you UNDERSTAND that, the second best apple (the NASA rocket) is not neccecairly worse then the best orange (the lego train)? Do you UNDERSTAND that, it's not because Bernie 1/4 wins vs Hillary (the second best apple), and Trump has a 3/4 wins vs rubio/cruz (the orange), that this doesn't mean that if they were compared to each other, that Bernie could still win from Trump? (which is the result of many polls?) But since you didn't respond to the apple & orange analogy, I got a feeling you already do, but you're just trying to nitpick & try to win some childish argument about semantics instead of accepting you understand my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 That's like saying 420k people voted for Trump because he's a douchebag. Way to insult the intelligence of the majority.side question though ... if we're not allowed to insult the intelligence of Trump supporters ... Can anyone explain to me who would vote for a man who would bomb the family of terrorists - which, not only is a warcrime (yes, even if the West does it - it's a warcrime. it's not collateral damage if you target them) but would also incite significant hatred toward the U.S. ? (and explain it in a way that doesn't warrant the insult of the intelligence of Trump supporters) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The One Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 side question though ... if we're not allowed to insult the intelligence of Trump supporters ... Can anyone explain to me who would vote for a man who would bomb the family of terrorists - which, not only is a warcrime (yes, even if the West does it - it's a warcrime. it's not collateral damage if you target them) but would also incite significant hatred toward the U.S. ? (and explain it in a way that doesn't warrant the insult of the intelligence of Trump supporters) I'm not a Trump supporter, so I don't know. Your question is also the whole point of this thread. However, people are too sensitive and politically correct. I don't care if Hillary is a liar. I don't care if Trump is racist. I will vote for them if their policies benefit me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapoFantasma97 Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I'm not a Trump supporter but I saw this today. Somewhat relevant. If that is the money spent for political campaigns, then I would call none efficient lol phenompak, puddingkip and Zapperzz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The One Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 If that is the money spent for political campaigns, then I would call none efficient lol Political campaigns cost a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapoFantasma97 Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Political campaigns cost a lot.I guess in US they take it EXTREMELY seriously to reach those numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I guess in US they take it EXTREMELY seriously to reach those numbers Oh, very. Did you know that Jeb has spend over $5000 per Iowa vote ... (really ... I recon it would have been cheaper for him just to Bribe people!) phenompak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twins_Mercury Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 There is something americans should care about : who is financing who ? Top Contributors for Bernie Sanders : link among which are : Microsoft Corp Apple Inc Amazon.com IBM Corp Intel Corp Facebook Inc I know this is a couple pages back but I felt the need to clarify some of this information. The site itself has a disclaimer stating that, "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." and as you can see here it shows that the money from the majority of the companies on the list came from individuals who work in those companies. Most of the PAC money came from labor unions, and even all the donations from Alphabet (google) workers combined are only stated to be $162,339 total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkle Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Do you UNDERSTAND that, it's not because a lego train wins, and a NASA rocket loses, that that doesn't make the train better then the rocket? Do you UNDERSTAND that, the second best apple (the NASA rocket) is not neccecairly worse then the best orange (the lego train)? Do you UNDERSTAND that, it's not because Bernie 1/4 wins vs Hillary (the second best apple), and Trump has a 3/4 wins vs rubio/cruz (the orange), that this doesn't mean that if they were compared to each other, that Bernie could still win from Trump? (which is the result of many polls?) But since you didn't respond to the apple & orange analogy, I got a feeling you already do, but you're just trying to nitpick & try to win some childish argument about semantics instead of accepting you understand my point. No, I understand your point but you're really having our replies go right over your head (which is why I'm not even trying to reply to you anymore, I sound like a broken record). You can go back and re-read this thread or the Bernie thread to answer most of your questions. By the way, you're the key piece to this "childish argument" so youre no better than me being here on this thread right now. Also I should mention you're trying to tie me into the poll comparing Trump's poll results to Bernies when I only had replied in this whole page between the NASA and Lego comparison, which had to do with funding, not polls. If you were to take a breath for 2 seconds and actually read what others were saying, it would benefit everyone here. As you would be able to actually see other people's points of view other than your own. Now, if you have any other real issues youd want to discuss about Trump on the Trump thread other than NASA and Legos or Apples and Oranges, I'd be happy to debate them. But right now you just seem really frustrated because you're precious commie is getting bashed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utsoob Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 No, I understand your point but you're really having our replies go right over your head (which is why I'm not even trying to reply to you anymore, I sound like a broken record). You can go back and re-read this thread or the Bernie thread to answer most of your questions. By the way, you're the key piece to this "childish argument" so youre no better than me being here on this thread right now. Also I should mention you're trying to tie me into the poll comparing Trump's poll results to Bernies when I only had replied in this whole page between the NASA and Lego comparison, which had to do with funding, not polls. If you were to take a breath for 2 seconds and actually read what others were saying, it would benefit everyone here. As you would be able to actually see other people's points of view other than your own. Now, if you have any other real issues youd want to discuss about Trump on the Trump thread other than NASA and Legos or Apples and Oranges, I'd be happy to debate them. But right now you just seem really frustrated because you're precious commie is getting bashed on. HES GETTING DUNKED ON. Also hey I'm back. Hyperqube, it takes no major balls to report a comment, that's all that I am going to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 No, I understand your point but ...That's the important part Also I should mention you're trying to tie me into the poll comparing Trump's poll results to Bernies when I only had replied in this whole page between the NASA and Lego comparison, which had to do with funding, not polls.Err ... 1/4 vs 3/4 states ... comparing 420K votes vs 250K votes ... you do know that isn't "funding", right? The equivalent of funding in the analogy is the fact that the lego train costs significantly less then the NASA rocket. The comparison has to do with what it calls "efficiency": Trump apparenly spend less money (which indeed is funding), but gets better results IN HIS RACE. Bernie apparently spend more money, and gets worse results IN HIS RACE. Again, in the analogy, the lego train costs less money, and scores better IN ITS RACE. the Nasa rocket costs more money, and scores worse IN ITS RACE. Yet - as my Lego tain is vastly inferiour to Nasa tech - at which point it should dawn that the comparison shows how silly/irrelevant such definition of efficiency is. Likewise, Bloomberg could start his own little Caucas, spend $0, and gets ALL the states ... Which would mean his "efficiency" - as the example defines it - is vastly superior then Trump. It is, and remains, fallicious. If it weren't fallicious to compare them, one could also play the opposite game: Trump only gets 13% of the U.S. votes, while Bernie gets 18%. (percentile of the population that is democrate/republican, multiplied by their percentile score in the caucus) But - likewise - that's an unfair comparison: If you have 5 equal candidates, two in a 1-vs-1 race, and three in a threeway, each receiving 50% of the voter total, One would get 25%/25% & 16.7%/16.7%/16.7% - dispite them being equal. One can't just go "25 is bigger then 16.7, so candidate 1 is better then candidate 3". Hyperqube it takes major balls to report a comment that's all that I am going to say.Err ... thanks, I guess ... but I don't recall reporting anyone. Either way - I'm not writing your posts, you are. You bare the responsability for your posts, not me. However, more to my point I have no reaspon why I would want you banned: I want my question in post #81 answered. And even though one mght argue that I don't believe you would be able to formulate a decent response to that, likewise one could argue that a non-decent response would confirm the existing bias against Trump supporters. if we're not allowed to insult the intelligence of Trump supporters ... Can anyone explain to me who would vote for a man who would bomb the family of terrorists - which, not only is a warcrime (yes, even if the West does it - it's a warcrime. it's not collateral damage if you target them) but would also incite significant hatred toward the U.S. ? (and explain it in a way that doesn't warrant the insult of the intelligence of Trump supporters) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utsoob Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The rest of the post is trash, but that last part is a easy one Because Obama got away with it. Obama's military staff has killed hundreds of people, women, children, and families alike. International outrage/war crimes? Those accusations died out years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#NewWizard Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The rest of the post is trash, but that last part is a easy one Because Obama got away with it. Obama's military staff has killed hundreds of people, women, children, and families alike. International outrage/war crimes? Those accusations died out years ago. Not only got away with it, but laughed straight to the Nobel Prize through empty promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 if we're not allowed to insult the intelligence of Trump supporters ... Can anyone explain to me who would vote for a man who would bomb the family of terrorists - which, not only is a warcrime (yes, even if the West does it - it's a warcrime. it's not collateral damage if you target them) but would also incite significant hatred toward the U.S. ? (and explain it in a way that doesn't warrant the insult of the intelligence of Trump supporters) The rest of the post is trash, but that last part is a easy one Because Obama got away with it. Obama's military staff has killed hundreds of people, women, children, and families alike. International outrage/war crimes? Those accusations died out years ago. So ... If Obama* jumps of a bridge, would that make it a good idea? I don't think so. * Not even running in the trap to try and divert this in a discussion if Obama blatently proposes to ignore the Geneva Convension, According to the law, voters are supposed to be OVER eighteen - I would hope that by then, they don't reason like that anymore. To re-itterate "explain it in a way that doesn't warrant the insult of the intelligence of Trump supporters". and btw, Please refrain from posting in size 8. It makes your posts look like you're desperate for attention instead of actually have anything intelligent to say. thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkle Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 That's the important part Err ... 1/4 vs 3/4 states ... comparing 420K votes vs 250K votes ... you do know that isn't "funding", right? The equivalent of funding in the analogy is the fact that the lego train costs significantly less then the NASA rocket. The comparison has to do with what it calls "efficiency": Trump apparenly spend less money (which indeed is funding), but gets better results IN HIS RACE. Bernie apparently spend more money, and gets worse results IN HIS RACE. Again, in the analogy, the lego train costs less money, and scores better IN ITS RACE. the Nasa rocket costs more money, and scores worse IN ITS RACE. Yet - as my Lego tain is vastly inferiour to Nasa tech - at which point it should dawn that the comparison shows how silly/irrelevant such definition of efficiency is. Likewise, Bloomberg could start his own little Caucas, spend $0, and gets ALL the states ... Which would mean his "efficiency" - as the example defines it - is vastly superior then Trump. It is, and remains, fallicious. If it weren't fallicious to compare them, one could also play the opposite game: Trump only gets 13% of the U.S. votes, while Bernie gets 18%. (percentile of the population that is democrate/republican, multiplied by their percentile score in the caucus) But - likewise - that's an unfair comparison: If you have 5 equal candidates, two in a 1-vs-1 race, and three in a threeway, each receiving 50% of the voter total, One would get 25%/25% & 16.7%/16.7%/16.7% - dispite them being equal. One can't just go "25 is bigger then 16.7, so candidate 1 is better then candidate 3". Again, you replied totally different that what my original comment intended. Dont be so quick to the defensive and take it in to process first, please. In the simplest way I can put it, you drew me into an argument that I played a minimal part in. But since this is becoming more personal discussions and not about Trump; I can't answer your question on why anyone would vote for Trump. I oppose Trump but not as much as Sanders. I still really hope he isnt our President though. My dad knew someone way back when who did floor work for Trump towers and Trump ended up paying him half for the job and threatened to sue if he wanted the other half of the payment. If he sued, of course Trump would win and my Dad's friend would of ended up paying out fortunes for lawyers. So someone who has business morals like that took a lot of shortcuts to be as successful as they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The One Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Why don't we all just calm down and wait for this day to end and make judgement after today's results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Penguins Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Why don't we all just calm down and wait for this day to end and make judgement after today's results. But watching this thread is literally more entertaining than SNL Zapperzz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkle Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Trump is stomping and Sanders is getting stomped. How does Bernie expect to beat Trump when he can't even come close to Clinton? Clinton is going to put up a better fight by the looks of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The One Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Trump is stomping and Sanders is getting stomped. How does Bernie expect to beat Trump when he can't even come close to Clinton? Clinton is going to put up a better fight by the looks of it. 'Cause Reddit, of course. https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3xviim/in_blockbuster_poll_sanders_destroys_trump_by_13/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/46eeru/new_national_poll_sanders_blows_out_every/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3olrwi/more_americans_support_bernie_sanders_than_donald/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/47ghpq/bernie_sanders_i_can_beat_trump_hillary_clinton/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3sngaw/new_poll_shows_bernie_sanders_leads_trump_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3rrk86/media_silent_as_sanders_overtakes_trump_in_every/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/471meu/i_made_this_for_yall_so_you_can_share_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/477sco/unless_the_democrats_run_sanders_a_trump/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3zz4yl/13_of_republicans_would_vote_for_sanders_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive/comments/3kx12j/poll_shows_bernie_sanders_would_beat_donald_trump/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3ep18k/bernie_sanders_beats_both_trump_and_walker_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/42hiqr/bernie_sanders_we_would_beat_donald_trump_badly/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Penguins Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Trump is stomping and Sanders is getting stomped. How does Bernie expect to beat Trump when he can't even come close to Clinton? Clinton is going to put up a better fight by the looks of it. Did you hear about the former Minnesota governor who said he would run if Sanders lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now