forgot password / register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#misc


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
778,417 comments by 11,476 users, 5 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, Goran_K, HEY YOU, Onvacation, UsualOven
new post
« prev   misc   next »

« First    « Previous     Comments 81 - 120 of 134     Next »     Last »

81 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 10:17am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Sniper says
So, you're going to tell me there are 10% - 15% MORE Dem voters in the country, because this is what was being reported in the methodology in your so called "accurate" polls in 2016?


I'm not going to go over this again with you for the millionth time.. You are clearly too dim to understand.


Come on Joey the TROLL. I outlined these issues over and over during the election. Why can't you just admit your Tribe is a bunch of dishonest people?
82 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 10:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
My point is that as a barometer and indicator of voter sentiment , the media and the pollsters they used dramatically discredited themselves in the 2016 elections.


I don't think you really care what reality is anymore so I guess you'll be perfectly at home here.

The polls called a very close election for Clinton. No more than a couple of percent difference.

The current polls say Trump's approval rating is under 40% of the country. Currently a difference of about 17%.

Your "point" is that the polls in 2016 were wrong by about 2%. (In Pennsylvania they were wrong by approximately 2% which was the average error) So your conclusion is that polls measuring a +17% dissatisfaction rating are wrong also? Do you have any idea how illogical this is?

83 iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
My point is that as a barometer and indicator of voter sentiment , the media and the pollsters they used dramatically discredited themselves in the 2016 elections.


Yeah we get it. Now prove it. I think you're dead wrong.
84 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Sniper says

Come on Joey the TROLL. I outlined these issues over and over during the election. Why can't you just admit your Tribe is a bunch of dishonest people?


I go where the data takes me.. And in most cases, it leads to the opposite of whatever you are saying.
85 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 10:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

After an entire election year of hearing that Trumps candidacy is a joke, that he doesn’t even want to win, of Obama saying “Donald Trump is not going to be President “, that Trump has no path to the presidency, and then him winning a substantial victory, it’s pathetic and comical to hear the same shills claim that polling shows Trump has a 17% unfavorable rating. Unfavorable compared to what anyway? An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda? After decades of gridlock in DC. , Trump defeated the Democrats and the Republicans.Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds. People have and will continue to respond to this.
86 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda?


Didn't Republicans turn obstructionism into a fine art form over the previous 8 years? Seemed to work OK for them, right?


PaisleyPattern says
Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds


What exactly is he leading on?
87 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 10:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
My point is that as a barometer and indicator of voter sentiment , the media and the pollsters they used dramatically discredited themselves in the 2016 elections.


Yeah we get it. Now prove it. I think you're dead wrong.


They are discredited for all intents and purposes for the time being. And the media and Democrats are digging a deeper hole for themselves.
88 iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
They are discredited for all intents and purposes for the time being.


Because they picked Clinton over Trump by 2%?

I don't know for sure but I'm willing to guess the "error" was probably within the margin of error.

If I can prove this and provide links, will you change your mind? I'm guessing no.
89 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/
"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968."
90 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 10:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda?


Didn't Republicans turn obstructionism into a fine art form over the previous 8 years? Seemed to work OK for them, right?


PaisleyPattern says
Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds


What exactly is he leading on?


Both parties were guilty of obstructionism. Trump isnt a Republican except in name, he only chose the Republican Party because he knew he could win more easily in that party. Past criticisms of the Republican Party aren’t relevant to Trump.
Trump is leading with respect to healthcare reform, immigration reform, reinvigorating the manufacturing sector in the US, creating more favorable trade policies, instituting pro growth tax reform. This is his agenda, it’s not all going to happen magically immediately. Also Trump is attempting to restore patriotism as a respectable ethic in the United States. He is attempting to inspire an optimistic and confident outlook in the American public. He is leading the attack to expose the very biased and manipulative media.
91 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
This was written BEFORE the election.

"Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week before the 2008 election had Barack Obama winning by 7.6 percentage points. He won by 7.3 points. Sometimes, however, the polls miss by more. Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points.
If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. She leads by 3.3 points in our polls-only forecast.
And 2012 isn’t an outlier. For presidential contests since 1968, here’s the average of national polls taken a week before the election compared with the final result."

92 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
This was written BEFORE the election.

"Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week before the 2008 election had Barack Obama winning by 7.6 percentage points. He won by 7.3 points. Sometimes, however, the polls miss by more. Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points.
If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. She leads by 3.3 points in our polls-only forecast.
And 2012 isn’t an outlier. For president...


This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.
93 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 11:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
They are discredited for all intents and purposes for the time being.


Because they picked Clinton over Trump by 2%?

I don't know for sure but I'm willing to guess the "error" was probably within the margin of error.

If I can prove this and provide links, will you change your mind? I'm guessing no.


My point is to express my opinion of how a significant part of the US population sees the media and polling in the US currently, in the wake of the 2016 election.Whether or not the polls were within the margin of error, or somehow the data was misinterpreted , or some other honest error, which I consider is highly unlikely , Trumps chances of winning were clearly misstated by the media using polling data which was alleged to be trustworthy and conclusive. For my part, I am OK with blaming the whole thing on biased media, purposefully misinterpreting polling, or cherry picking results, but until further notice, myself and others are unlikely to trust the media’s assessment of Trumps popularity. It is reminiscent of Saddam Hussein getting 100% of the vote. It is at least a version of that. I think people will agree that media can be corrupt, election polling can be purposefully inaccurate , polling results can be used to attempt to influence the electorate. A lot of people think that happened in this election .
94 WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 11:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I'm not sure I follow all the logic here. I think some are arguing the perception of the polls and others are arguing the accuracy of the polls. The polls were accurate based on the margin of error they list on each poll. Doesn't matter how they sample, most polls were within their own stated margin of error. So they admit there will be error and I think most polls were within that margin. I'm not sure what there is to question in that regards. No poll will ever be 100% accurate and I think we can all agree on that. Or at least I hope so.

The perception of the polls being accurate is another question altogether. I don't think you can co-mingle the perception of accurate polls with polls that were actually accurate by the standards of polling. The perception of the polls were skewed by people with agendas and it's your personal choice to soak it up or ignore it. You have to remember that this was a close race between two really bad candidates. Considering the voter remorse and negativity around the election, I'm actually surprised the margin of error on a lot of these polls didn't get blown out of the water.

I'll agree there's now a perception of polls being inaccurate and you're free to question that. I actually think it's good to question data and not just assume it's solid. I'll make a bet though right now. $1k on every single 2nd year major election (presidential and mid-terms). All Federal candidates (President, senators & house members). 5 Days before the election I get the poll leaders and you (anyone) get the field. Whoever wins the most races at the end of that years elections gets $1k from me or I get your $1k. I will make this bet with anyone, every election season until I run out of free cash on hand (I won't).
95 iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 11:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
My point is to express my opinion of how a significant part of the US population sees the media and polling in the US currently,


That was never your point. Your point was the majority of Americans support Trump in defiance of every single poll which says otherwise.

Since both can't be true, you decided all the polls are wrong because nothing. Because you want that to be the case. You just create an alternate version of reality, but that's not enough so you start preaching to everyone else like it's a fact.
96 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 12:03pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

WookieMan says
Doesn't matter how they sample, most polls were within their own stated margin of error. So they admit there will be error and I think most polls were within that margin. I'm not sure what there is to question in that regards.


This is where you're wrong. Sampling was a BIG issue with all the last polls. In some cases, they were over sampling Dem voters by 10% - 14% MORE to try and keep Hillary in the lead. In reality, the split between the parties is only a few points, so if they sampled equal to the voting population, Trump would have been ahead.

WookieMan says
The perception of the polls being accurate is another question altogether.


And that's exactly why they did it. To continue to push their narrative and PERCEPTION that Hillary was "winning".
97 Roidy   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Gentle Reader,

Horrific or not, I've been entertained.

Regards,
Roidy
98 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 12:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/
"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls.


Joey the TROLL, polls and the percentages mean NOTHING. The popular vote means NOTHING. How many times does this have to be repeated to get it through your THICK TROLLING skull.

Your boy, Nate Silver, was 100% wrong throughout the election, right up to the last day, yet you still keep going back to post his bullshit. Do you like to be always 100% wrong?

Here was Nate's predictions on election day:



He couldn't have been MORE WRONG. Most important, see on the bottom, his Electoral College numbers, here is how he had it:

Clinton: 302
Trump: 235

Talk about missing it, here was the actual EC total:



Trump: 306
Clinton: 232

Are you STILL going to tell us that was in the "margin of error"?
99 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
My point is to express my opinion of how a significant part of the US population sees the media and polling in the US currently,


That was never your point. Your point was the majority of Americans support Trump in defiance of every single poll which says otherwise.

Since both can't be true, you decided all the polls are wrong because nothing. Because you want that to be the case. You just create an alternate version of reality, but that's not enough so you start preaching to everyone else like it's a fact.


No, I haven’t said that the majority of Americans support Trump. I have said that it is laughable to use polling statistics to try to convince people that those who voted for Trump are discouraged and disappointed. Maybe the 17% number needs to be further explained. Or maybe we can leave that until after the next election, when it turned out not to be predictive of the results.
100 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says

This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.


No he didn't. Please go back and read Nate's writing. . He was banging the drum all season saying the models showing Trump with a 95% chance of winning were crap.

Seriously--you are 100% incorrect. Do some research on your own if you don't believe me.
101 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

CIC- again, it's no use having this discussion with you because it's over your head.

If I have a 6 sided die and I say there's only a 16.67% chance it lands on 1, then I roll it and it lands on 1--was I wrong?

Because that's basically what you are saying.

Nate said there's a 30% chance of Trump winning, and he won. Was Nate wrong?
102 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 12:25pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Was Nate wrong?


Want to explain his E.C. prediction, because that's the ONLY thing that matters? Was that right or wrong?
103 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Sniper says

Want to explain his E.C. prediction, because that's the ONLY thing that matters? Was that right or wrong?


He didn't predict anything. He simply averaged the state's polling data and awarded it to the polling leader.
104 iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
I have said that it is laughable to use polling statistics to try to convince people that those who voted for Trump are discouraged and disappointed.


Many of them are.
105 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says

This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.


No he didn't. Please go back and read Nate's writing. . He was banging the drum all season saying the models showing Trump with a 95% chance of winning were crap.

Seriously--you are 100% incorrect. Do some research on your own if you don't believe me.



Here are a few Silver quotes:

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters,” Two Good Reasons Not To Take the Donald Trump ‘Surge’ Seriously — July 16, 2015.

“Basically Trump is the Nickelback of presidential candidates. Disliked by most, super popular with a few.” — July 28, 2015

“PREDICTION: Trump won’t be the Republican /nominee.” — Aug. 6, 2015

“Media: Trump’s doing great! Nerds: No. Those polls don’t mean what you think. Media: A new poll shows Trump doing great! Proved you wrong!” — Aug. 9, 2015

“Donald Trump is winning the polls and losing the nomination.” — Aug. 11, 2015

“About 25% of Americans identify as Republican. Donald Trump’s getting about 25% of that 25% in the polls. Why is this impressive to people?” — Nov. 19, 2015

“Dear media, Please stop freaking out about Donald Trump’s polls.” — Nov. 23, 2015.

“As for me, I remain quite skeptical of Trump’s chances. I also think his nomination would be an unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans.” — Nov. 29, 2015

“Idea that ‘Trump would win an election today’ also dubious. If election were today, voters would be more informed and news cycle different.” — Dec. 4, 2015

(in response to Rupert Murdoch tweeting that Trump’s “cross-party appeal” was a “winning strategy”): “Actually, Trump is by far the least popular Republican with independents (and Democrats)”— Jan. 15, 2016

“Wait it’s just now sinking in that Trump might be a wee bit problematic as a general election candidate?” — March 20, 2016

“Trump’s general elex numbers have been terrible since he launched bid. Media barely noticed during 2015 Trumpmania.” — March 29, 2016

“[Idea of Trump being presumptive nominee by mid-May] is delusional. Math doesn’t work.” — April 9, 2016

“The bad news for Trump is that a poll showing him 5 points down is considered good news for Trump.” — June 26, 2016

“Perhaps the worst take is the ‘Trump’s actually doing well to only be down by 7!!!’ take. He’s the least popular major-party nominee ever.” — Aug. 3, 2016

“Trump has been super unpopular with the November electorate pretty much forever.” — Aug. 16, 2016

“Trump is doubling down on a losing strategy.” — Aug. 18, 2016

“[The] most delusional part of Trump thinking he has a silent majority is how small a fraction of the population he’s even bothering to appeal to.” — Aug. 13, 2016

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/why-you-should-never-ever-listen-to-nate-silver
Is this enough?
This coming from a pollster doesn’t look good. I guess Trump had an incredible surge and just beat Hillary by a nose at the finish line.
106 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 12:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
He was banging the drum all season saying...


... that Trump would drop out, that it would be a contested convention, that Trump wouldn't get the nomination, that Trump wouldn't win. How many times does he need to be wrong before you stop blowing him?

107 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
Is this enough?
This coming from a pollster doesn’t look good. I guess Trump had an incredible surge and just beat Hillary by a nose at the finish line.


No--I'm saying actually go to 538 and read some of his articles from late Oct. and early Nov. Don't go to conservative hit piece sites--go to the source and judge for yourself.

That's if you really want to learn something.
108 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 12:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Don't go to conservative hit piece sites


Are you saying all those articles by Nate are Fake news and not true?
109 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
I have said that it is laugshable to use polling statistics to try to convince people that those who voted for Trump are discouraged and disappointed.


Many of them are.


I doubt they are discouraged enough to vote for Hillary in a rematch, or Michelle Obama,or Warren or Biden.
110 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
Is this enough?
This coming from a pollster doesn’t look good. I guess Trump had an incredible surge and just beat Hillary by a nose at the finish line.


No--I'm saying actually go to 538 and read some of his articles from late Oct. and early Nov. Don't go to conservative hit piece sites--go to the source and judge for yourself.

That's if you really want to learn something.


Those are his quotes aren’t they?
112 iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
I doubt they are discouraged enough to vote for Hillary in a rematch, or Michelle Obama,or Warren or Biden.


Biden would have won easily. Michele Obama was never a candidate. Anyone will be able to beat Trump in 2020, if he survives that long, but by then we'll be in a recession so he'll lose in the primaries.
113 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Sniper says
joeyjojojunior says
No--I'm saying actually go to 538 and read some of his articles


OK, even Nate said he fucked up, but YOU still won't admit it:


How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump
Trump’s nomination shows the need for a more rigorous approach.

By Nate Silver

Filed under 2016 Election

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/


Hey Joey the TROLL, what else you got???


This.
114 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 12:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Don't go to conservative hit piece sites-


Like WaPo, are they a conservative hit piece site?

Nate Silver blew it when he missed Trump. Now he really needs to get it right.
..."Silver, 38, had a run of them a few months ago, when it became obvious that his consistent early dismissals of Donald Trump’s chances to be the Republican presidential nominee were flat-out wrong. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nate-silver-blew-it-when-he-missed-trump-now-he-really-needs-to-get-it-right/2016/10/30/82c1f258-9bab-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.30430a561dff
115 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
I doubt they are discouraged enough to vote for Hillary in a rematch, or Michelle Obama,or Warren or Biden.


Biden would have won easily. Michele Obama was never a candidate. Anyone will be able to beat Trump in 2020, if he survives that long, but by then we'll be in a recession so he'll lose in the primaries.


I predict by 2020 Trump will have consolidated power and have gathered support from both Democrats and Republicans. Biden could never have won, Trump would’ve tore him up, too much of a buffoon.
116 Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 7, 12:43pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
Anyone will be able to beat Trump in 2020,


Just like they did in 2016?

Hillary had 90% of the media on her side, all the GOPe, spent double what Trump spent, and she lost BIGLY to a contractor from NY.

Not only did she lose, she lost multiple states that Obama won both times. Talk about a loser!

You mean THAT anyone?
117 iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

PaisleyPattern says
I predict by 2020 Trump will have consolidated power and have gathered support from both Democrats and Republicans. Biden could never have won, Trump would’ve tore him up, too much of a buffoon.


Again we see a massive departure from reality. It's fine to predict that somehow a man who has alienated and attacked the people closest to him in his own administration will rally the troops and gain enough support to stay in power.

However it's fucking ridiculous to claim that Biden was a buffoon next to Donald Trump the orange clown.
118 anon_58deb   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 1:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
I predict by 2020 Trump will have consolidated power and have gathered support from both Democrats and Republicans. Biden could never have won, Trump would’ve tore him up, too much of a buffoon.


Again we see a massive departure from reality. It's fine to predict that somehow a man who has alienated and attacked the people closest to him in his own administration will rally the troops and gain enough support to stay in power.

However it's fucking ridiculous to claim that Biden was a buffoon next to Donald Trump the orange clown.


Trump has defeated the democratic party and is dismantling the Republican Party. After he maintains power and achieves some successes, politicians from both parties will realize which way the wind blows it and will join him. Trump rewards results, and has no time for failure. This is how he motivates people. He also pits them against each other, to try to bring out the best.
Joe Biden has such a weak public persona, and never gained much attention as Obama’s VP. He’s already run twice, the first one ended in scandal and in the second try he didn’t get the nomination. His approach to 2016 was wishy-washy and indecisive. He is old and also has a reputation for creepiness. He had no hope and has no hope in 2020
119 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 7, 1:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

achieves some successes

————

How much longer are you going to hold your breath? Oh, I almost forgot. Even though they hold absolute power of all branches of government, they are still thwarted by the media and some wimpy string beans at Berkeley.

Do you realize how this makes you look?
120 PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 1:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_58deb says
iwog says
PaisleyPattern says
I predict by 2020 Trump will have consolidated power and have gathered support from both Democrats and Republicans. Biden could never have won, Trump would’ve tore him up, too much of a buffoon.


Again we see a massive departure from reality. It's fine to predict that somehow a man who has alienated and attacked the people closest to him in his own administration will rally the troops and gain enough support to stay in power.

However it's fucking ridiculous to claim that Biden was a buffoon next to Donald Trump the orange clown.


Trump has defeated the democratic party and is dismantling the Republican Party. After he maintains power and achieves some successes, politicians from both parties will realize which way the wind blows and will join him. Trump re...



Trump has defeated the Democratic party and is dismantling the Republican Party. After he maintains power and achieves some successes, politicians from both parties will realize which way the wind blows and will join him. Trump rewards results, and has no time for failure. This is how he motivates people. He also pits them against each other, to try to bring out the best.
Joe Biden has such a weak public persona, and never gained much attention as Obama’s VP. He’s already run twice, the first one ended in scandal and in the second try he didn’t get the nomination. His approach to 2016 was wishy-washy and indecisive. He is old and also has a reputation for creepiness. He had no hope in 2016 and has no hope in 2020.

« First    « Previous     Comments 81 - 120 of 134     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_d18a7 or log in at top of page:

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail   old posts by year  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home