More than 1 in 5 Trump SUPPORTERS think he will involve the US in a nuclear war

[agent00f]

So you're going to ignore evidence because you've already reached a conclusion that supports your opinion?

No, I simply know enough english to read a sentence correctly. Also just fyi, I added to the post you quote.

 

[glenn1]

The sentence is simple enough to grasp as demonstrated, outside of particularly motivated nutcases.

It's also worth mention that the solution to klan lynchings and such isn't to expect black people to become armed vigilantes, but rather to do something about the klan. However that does highlight how certain groups think about such matters.

Yeah, not like allowing them their constitutional rights to defend themselves is "doing something" about the Klan.

 

[Knowing]

No, I simply know enough english to read a sentence correctly. Also just fyi, I added to the post you quote.

So short answer: yes, you are ignoring evidence because you are satisfied with your present conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

So short answer: yes, you are ignoring evidence because you are satisfied with your present conclusion.

I find it ironic that you are saying this in the same thread in which you declared a scientific poll meaningless because it wasn't peer reviewed.

lol.

 

[Knowing]

I find it ironic that you are saying this in the same thread in which you declared a scientific poll meaningless because it wasn't peer reviewed.

lol.

No, I said a dubious poll with no method was meaningless. It also has a small sample size.

Further, I provided a link directly to the data I referenced. I can quote it if you'd like.

 

[zinfamous]

I have head Clinton from her own mouth....

whoa...kinky!

 

[zinfamous]

ah, another thread littered with "true conservatives" confessing that their only true desire in the world is to murder unarmed liberals--not to actually address or work to solve real problems.

work? what the hell is work? sounds too hard!

 

[fskimospy]

No, I said a dubious poll with no method was meaningless. It also has a small sample size.

It's methodology was plainly stated for all to see. Also, 1,000 people is not a small sample size for this result, which you would know if you understood scientific polling or statistics. Finally, you said that without peer review it lacked legitimacy.

Further, I provided a link directly to the data I referenced. I can quote it if you'd like.

I provided a link directly to the data I referenced as well, it didn't stop you from ignoring the evidence you found inconvenient.

Usually people don't out themselves as hypocrites in the same thread. Points for efficiency I guess!

 

[Commodus]

Yeah, not like allowing them their constitutional rights to defend themselves is "doing something" about the Klan.

Because we all know that 2nd Amendment helped black people in the Deep South before desegregation and the Civil Rights Act.

Carrying a gun only works for instances when you're actively threatened with violence. You can't shoot a Klansman when he's distributing racist flyers, planting burning crosses while you sleep, or influencing your local politician. At a certain point, you have to go beyond hoping that things will "just work out" with gun ownership and take active (non-violent) steps. Not voting for the presidential candidate endorsed by a key KKK member is a good start...

 

[glenn1]

ah, another thread littered with "true conservatives" confessing that their only true desire in the world is to murder unarmed liberals--not to actually address or work to solve real problems.

work? what the hell is work? sounds too hard!

Yes and you don't know just how hard it is to keep ourselves from acting upon that true desire. We're just waiting for the "GO" signal before we begin and that signal is of course Trump's election. Hopefully they don't set the tag limits too low because it's always a shame when you can't cull enough and some of the herd starves to death.

 

[Knowing]

It's methodology was plainly stated for all to see. Also, 1,000 people is not a small sample size for this result, which you would know if you understood scientific polling or statistics. Finally, you said that without peer review it lacked legitimacy.



I provided a link directly to the data I referenced as well, it didn't stop you from ignoring the evidence you found inconvenient.

Usually people don't out themselves as hypocrites in the same thread. Points for efficiency I guess!

What I read was that it was a survey monkey poll of approximately 1000 people.

Is that the extent of the method? If it isn't please quote it for me.

I stated a number of reasons it was lacking legitimacy, no peer review was the last of them. I thought you had gotten over your hurt feelings about peer review. I guess you still have work to do.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes and you don't know just how hard it is to keep ourselves from acting upon that true desire. We're just waiting for the "GO" signal before we begin and that signal is of course Trump's election. Hopefully they don't set the tag limits too low because it's always a shame when you can't cull enough and some of the herd starves to death.

Actually, according to a redneck interviewed on NPR this morning, that Go signal was for when Hillary is elected. He is 100% certain that if Hillary wins, the "patriots' (his militia buddies that he just joined) will instantly rise up and take back this country for all true Americans.

This is in Georgia, so I'm not sure what the Montana and Wyoming redneck militias think. I wonder if they have all properly coordinated the Go signal, since you and your buddies seem to be in disagreement with the Georgia buddies? You guys need to get your shit together--really don't want to be embarrassed by the swift and decisive action of the US Military when you can't even seem to properly get your doughnut breaks scheduled, do you?

Have you confirmed with Spidey?

 

[glenn1]

Actually, according to a redneck interviewed on NPR this morning, that Go signal was for when Hillary is elected. He is 100% certain that if Hillary wins, the "patriots' (his militia buddies that he just joined) will instantly rise up and take back this country for all true Americans.

This is in Georgia, so I'm not sure what the Montana and Wyoming redneck militias think. I wonder if they have all properly coordinated the Go signal, since you and your buddies seem to be in disagreement with the Georgia buddies? You guys need to get your shit together--really don't want to be embarrassed by the swift and decisive action of the US Military when you can't even seem to properly get your doughnut breaks scheduled, do you?

Have you confirmed with Spidey?

That's the thing about good old boys, they're pretty much a GO no matter who wins. They're always up for a good time. You blue state folks better get to passing some more gun control laws before November. You never know when someone from the ghetto might get on the wrong bus route and shoot up your house rather than the competing drug dealer's and without another law or ten that ghetto person won't know that's wrong and they shouldn't do it.

 

[fskimospy]

What I read was that it was a survey monkey poll of approximately 1000 people.

Is that the extent of the method? If it isn't please quote it for me.

As I previously mentioned they clearly and publicly stated their methodology. It's very difficult to see how any competent person could say that their methodology page was missing. Have I overestimated you? (as a note, that would be very difficult to do)

The poll was conducted via SurveyMonkey on behalf of the Lincoln Leadership Initiative among a national sample of 1,051 registered voters from September 16 to September 21, 2016. In a random sample of respondents of that size, the margin of error is +/-4 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval. Results of the survey were weighted by party affiliation using the Pollster.com average of party identification to reflect the current political composition of the U.S. electorate.

How did you miss this? Are you this inept at using the internet? Let me know if you need any other tips on how to navigate the mysterious Information Superhighway.

I stated a number of reasons it was lacking legitimacy, no peer review was the last of them. I thought you had gotten over your hurt feelings about peer review. I guess you still have work to do.

You actually stated two reasons: one was the lack of methodology, which you were wrong about, and the second was that it wasn't peer reviewed, which is true for literally every poll that has been taken for this election. If you think this poll lacks legitimacy due to that then all polls are illegitimate. I shouldn't have to tell you why this is a deeply stupid answer.

Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong? You'll feel better after you do it, I promise. Surely your pride isn't that fragile.

 

[Knowing]

As I previously mentioned they clearly and publicly stated their methodology. It's very difficult to see how any competent person could say that their methodology page was missing. Have I overestimated you? (as a note, that would be very difficult to do)



How did you miss this? Are you this inept at using the internet? Let me know if you need any other tips on how to navigate the mysterious Information Superhighway.



You actually stated two reasons: one was the lack of methodology, which you were wrong about, and the second was that it wasn't peer reviewed, which is true for literally every poll that has been taken for this election. If you think this poll lacks legitimacy due to that then all polls are illegitimate. I shouldn't have to tell you why this is a deeply stupid answer.

Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong? You'll feel better after you do it, I promise. Surely your pride isn't that fragile.

Thank you for finally quoting the methodology for me.

Two is a number, is it not?

Could you cite your source for "literally every poll?" I wouldn't ask if not for the "literally."

Addendum, I don't suppose their party weighting data was published was it?

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you for finally quoting the methodology for me.

Can you explain why you thought posting repeatedly about the methodology was a better route than simply taking ten seconds to read it on the site yourself? You do this sort of thing a lot and I'm curious as to why anyone would behave in that way.

Two is a number, is it not?

Gotcha, so your 'number' of reasons outside of a lack of peer review was one other thing that you were obviously wrong about. ie: nothing outside of peer review. Thank you for helping us establish this fact.

Could you cite your source for "literally every poll?" I wouldn't ask if not for the "literally."

Addendum, I don't suppose their party weighting data was published was it?

I read polls frequently and I have not only not seen a single one that was peer reviewed, I have not seen anyone even suggest that such a thing would happen or that it would be a good idea to do. If you can find me even a single poll from this election that has been peer reviewed I'll gladly change my statement to reflect it. Just one. Take as much time as you need.

Again though, the irony in you complaining about people ignoring inconvenient evidence is some pretty hilarious hypocrisy.

 

[Knowing]

Can you explain why you thought posting repeatedly about the methodology was a better route than simply taking ten seconds to read it on the site yourself? You do this sort of thing a lot and I'm curious as to why anyone would behave in that way.



Gotcha, so your 'number' of reasons outside of a lack of peer review was one other thing that you were obviously wrong about. ie: nothing outside of peer review. Thank you for helping us establish this fact.



I read polls frequently and I have not only not seen a single one that was peer reviewed, I have not seen anyone even suggest that such a thing would happen or that it would be a good idea to do. If you can find me even a single poll from this election that has been peer reviewed I'll gladly change my statement to reflect it. Just one. Take as much time as you need.

Again though, the irony in you complaining about people ignoring inconvenient evidence is some pretty hilarious hypocrisy.

I read what you linked. I did not go searching on your behalf.

My number is a rational whole number. This would be the second time in barely two weeks that basic numbers have confounded you.

Good for you with that reading, it truly is fundamental. Do you have proof to support your "literally" claim or not? To avoid tangents I'll accept anything other than "yes" (and proof) as you simply making a linguistically incorrect figure of speech for reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

I read what you linked. I did not go searching on your behalf.

Ah, so when you said 'missing' you meant you didn't want to click twice. Again I am baffled as to why you would invest the time and energy to post multiple times about something you must have known was wrong as opposed to clicking a few times. Wouldn't you want to avoid looking dumb? Do you get some sort of pleasure out of humiliating yourself?

My number is a rational whole number. This would be the second time in barely two weeks that basic numbers have confounded you.

lol.

Good for you with that reading, it truly is fundamental. Do you have proof to support your "literally" claim or not? To avoid tangents I'll accept anything other than "yes" (and proof) as you simply making a linguistically incorrect figure of speech for reasons.

You're asking me to prove a negative? Of course you are, you're Knowing. 😉 My proof is located in every published poll today. Go look at any one you please, none of them are peer reviewed. You have claimed that they are peer reviewed but have provided no evidence. All you need is to provide a single one of them that is peer reviewed and you're good to go. What's the holdup? Is your hypocrisy extending to demanding proof from other people while not providing it yourself?

Like I said this argument is stupid, even for you. I can't imagine you actually believe that presidential polls are peer reviewed, I imagine you're just mad that I've made you look stupid again and so you're acting like a child.

 

[jackstar7]

Pedantry! Thou hast another name and it is Knowing!

cybr is it really you?

 

[cubby1223]

It's methodology was plainly stated for all to see. Also, 1,000 people is not a small sample size for this result, which you would know if you understood scientific polling or statistics. Finally, you said that without peer review it lacked legitimacy.

Ha! The survey lacks legitimacy for the primary reason that it doesn't pass the "sniff test". But the sad thing about this is you are fully aware of the questionable nature of these survey results, yet you don't give a sh*t, parading it around the forum for only God knows what joys this forum brings you in life.

 

[soundforbjt]

[QUOTE="cubby1223, post: 38490053, member: 134892"]Ha! The survey lacks legitimacy for the primary reason that it doesn't pass the "sniff test". But the sad thing about this is you are fully aware of the questionable nature of these survey results, yet you don't give a sh*t, parading it around the forum for only God knows what joys this forum brings you in life.[/QUOTE]

I seem to remember a canned ham...oh wait, that was turd blossom, exclaiming that polls were wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Ha! The survey lacks legitimacy for the primary reason that it doesn't pass the "sniff test". But the sad thing about this is you are fully aware of the questionable nature of these survey results, yet you don't give a sh*t, parading it around the forum for only God knows what joys this forum brings you in life.

So the survey is illegitimate because it tells you things you don't believe. Can't beat that logic! lol.

Cubby, I want to apologize to you that I haven't been living up to the august standards of being an 'Elite Member' in your eyes. I imagine that your concern for the good name of these forums is why you are so bizarrely interested in my comings and goings and so I don't hold it against you. Even though you hate me, I don't hate you! I like to think that if we met in real life we could be friends.

 

[Rumble Fish]

You guys do realize you can make a poll and get it to "imply" whatever the heck you're aiming for , yeah?

And as far as a person in power having a hand in pointless, horrible and disgusting destruction? Have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton or a country known as Libya?

This thread is an amazing insight into how freaking clueless your average progressive is. These people will believe anything. F my life.

 

[zinfamous]

You guys do realize you can make a poll and get it to "imply" whatever the heck you're aiming for , yeah?

And as far as a person in power having a hand in pointless, horrible and disgusting destruction? Have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton or a country known as Libya?

This thread is an amazing insight into how freaking clueless your average progressive is. These people will believe anything. F my life.

You do realize that you can flippantly dismiss any type of data point that uncomfortably disagrees with your core assumptions, right?

yes, F your life, indeed. Progressives really have made life difficult for you. Such a poor, poor victim of progressives. I hope your safe space has enough guns and bibles to protect you from the evil progressive and blacky wave that is headed your way. 🙁

 

[jackstar7]

You guys do realize you can make a poll and get it to "imply" whatever the heck you're aiming for , yeah?

And as far as a person in power having a hand in pointless, horrible and disgusting destruction? Have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton or a country known as Libya?

This thread is an amazing insight into how freaking clueless your average progressive is. These people will believe anything. F my life.

Oooo! Another!

WWYBYWB?