Jump to content

Trump 2016


Butters
 Share

Who is better for america?   

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is better for america?



Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

The poll clearly took place after the debate because the news channel wanted to see what people's ideas on the debated subjects were. 

I mean, duh. 

You've expressed a hypothesis to explain the poll results; that a lot of voters were basing their response on the media reputation of candidates, instead of sincere (dis)agreement with their policies.  That's not a reason to doubt the results. 

 

I will reiterate, I am interested that about half of democrats agree with a moratorium on Muslim immigration, but that only a quarter continue to agree with this statement when it is associated with Trump. 

I am concerned that this shows a lot of people base their views on a candidate's perceived affiliation, rather than because of an honest assessment of their policies. 

I am particularly concerned that highly educated people are much more likely to do this. They should be much less likely to, if University degrees are worth anything. 

I understand why they took the poll. Wasn't asking for a smartass explanation. In fact at no point did I claim I knew why they were trying to take the poll. My second paragraph in previous response was a comment on timing-based mindset. I'm not questioning the choice to take the poll then, more than I am trying to address the fact that there would e a difference.

I'm not saying to trash the results because of these things. I'm saying that people are inherently going to think differently than they are in the voting booth, that these statistics represent a response just as much as they do anything else. And there's the problem. This isn't to discard or disprove the study, it is to enforce our understanding of it. The whole point of this is to understand the most accurate context of the poll possible; bias dictates a need to understand what a poll actually proves, and how it could be misused if these things are not understood. It's not a reason to doubt the results; it's a reason to doubt certain conclusions made elsewhere.

 

Edited by evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I'm not interested in the absolute rates of people agreeing with trump's policies. 

I'm interested in the affect that mentioning trump has on those rates. 

If I had posted a poll published on any other news out let, then this massive investigation that is desperate to prove the poll is biased, would not have happened. 

Unless people can actually identify causes of demonstrable bias in the poll, rather than 'the poll had to be conducted between 08:00 and 09:00...obviously true liberals tend to express their views after 9pm,' then can we actually move on to discussing the implications of the result?

I am just attempting to point out a poll is going to be biased and inherently inaccurate whether or not you like its results. I dislike polls released to the public, and this was instilled in me by a political science instructor some years ago.

My feeling is that most of the people on this forum would be quick to question any poll where people they identify with agree with Trump in any way whether or not the poll was from Fox. That it was from Fox did not hurt.

However, I could just as quickly pull out a Quinnipiac poll that disagrees with the Fox poll, a Monmouth poll that disagrees, and any number of other polls that will be all over the place. All opinion polls are biased, though. All polls are. There is no way to escape it, and the results of the ones that are best at avoiding it are hidden away in the campaign headquarters of political campaigns and the headquarters of massive retailers.

I will point out, though, that the Quinnipiac poll and the Monmouth poll took place before the debate but after the San Bernardino and Paris attacks.

Also, the time constraints in the U.S. usually select against minorities, the poor, and those with religious obligations - groups that may or may not change the results of such a poll. The Pew Research Center itself has admitted that it has difficulty in getting more than a tenth of those it contacts first to respond in opinion polls for similar non-response and selection reasons, and some polling organizations are lobbying - a friggin' polling lobby - for changes to Title 47 in order to make their polls more accurate; this would also happen to make them more valuable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea.

It would appear the Quinnipiac survey found that, when Trump is not involved in the question, those that reported themselves as having a college degree were the least likely to support banning Muslims. Monmouth found that most of the participants had heard of Trump's proposal, and even those that identified as Republican were opposed to barring the entry of Muslims.

Along with this Quinnipiac found that younger individuals are more likely to oppose the Muslim ban.

I would like to have a list of all opinion polls on this subject organized by date conducted. Politics goes too fast.

In less than half a year we've had

  • a candidate defend that he had attempted to kill somebody and was never charged,
  • a candidate suggest barring an entire religion from entering our country,
  • a debate about how much we should bomb a country we are not at war with,
  • a candidate end a debate with "May the force be with you,"
  • a huge number of candidates drop out with most people being unaware, and
  • a Twitter war between people that are in the running to become the leader of one of the most powerful countries to have ever existed.
Edited by MalletFace
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Apparently there are people writing homoerotic novels about him. Have some exerpts!

‘My loins trembled as the scent of toupee adhesive and spray tan swept through my nasal cavity’

‘His gorgeous ass flapped behind him like a mouthwatering stack of pancakes in his pants. My hunger for pancakes had never been stronger.’

‘I had to admit it, I wanted his geriatric 2006 Perez Hilton jello body, and I wanted it bad.’

‘The door creaked open and there he was, handsome as ever, like a giant melting fat carrot with fake hair.’

I especially like the last one :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phyllostachys said:

though Sanders doesn't seem to be a good option for American economy.

There are more ways to help the economy than bending over for the big corporations like the Republicans are doing it.
A very social approach, as in making sure that everyone can actually afford to buy shit without taking multiple jobs, can help the economy as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Käpt'n said:

A very social approach, as in making sure that everyone can actually afford to buy shit without taking multiple jobs, can help the economy as well.

If you are talking about higher minimum wage, isn't it already a near-established fact among economists that it actually contributes little to alleviating income inequality as it decreases available jobs and increases cost of products?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Phyllostachys said:

If you are talking about higher minimum wage, isn't it already a near-established fact among economists that it actually contributes little to alleviating income inequality as it decreases available jobs and increases cost of products?

Sadly the theory and research within this is dominated by a few - mostly U.S. - economists. Remember that most economists do not actually do research work; they sit in their offices advising businesses and organizations while their skills in research and analysis of unfamiliar data rot away.

Those office economists tend to argue against an increase in minimum wage by saying it would cause an increase in total unemployment because the cost of labor rises. This would cause costs of most things to increase.

The actual researchers and theorists, though, tend to say that an increase in minimum wage would decrease teenage employment and increase employment of adults and older. They believe the increase in labor costs has had and should have a negligible impact on prices, but increased money for spending will provide a tiny stimulus for the national economy.

The first group includes people like Jon Hilsenrath and William Dunkelberg. Most of these men and women either work as journalists or advisers for large corporations, so there are too many to count but not that many with authoritative knowledge on this topic.

The second group includes people like David Card, Erik Maskin, and Robert Solow. Most of these men and women work within or are receiving a doctorate from universities with economic science departments. It actually includes hundreds more with current experience and knowledge in this area, but the biggest list I could find was of 600+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there are economists who do research, and see effects like moving production jobs overseas, creating long term employment issues by making it difficult for teens to get jobs and build an employment history, and most importantly that increased spending from minimum wage is only possible from decreased spending from something else. That last one is one that for whatever reason is missed by a lot of (dumb and narrow minded) economists. Like the broken windows thing, where the thought is that if a window is broken, the window maker gets anther job and the economy is stimulated. But it CoinOutlet ignores that the window owner is out of the money, and so is whoever that money would have been spent on. Likewise here, the minimum wage workers get more money to spend on the economy, but people who buy now more expensive products and others whom that money comes from get less. At best it's a wash, but it's actually worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2016 at 10:32 AM, Phyllostachys said:

Being from Korea, I do hope Trump does not get elected, though Sanders doesn't seem to be a good option for American economy.

I don't know much about Clinton, so I can't really comment on her.

Here's a basic primer about some of the potential candidates for POTUS since as an officially certified jackass on the internet, I'm scientifically proven to be a better source of information than everything else.

~ The Democrats ~

Hillary Clinton - Current 'Secretary of State', wife of former US president Bill Clinton and eternal cuck. A walking embodiment of government corruption and political shadiness and generally just an overall cunt. Still probably gonna win though simply through process of elimination so at least we'll have the first president with a vagina or something. Assuming of course she isn't some kind of lizard person of course.

Bernie Sanders - Basically the Ron Paul of 2016 but literally the exact opposite ideologically. Despite this he managed to get all the same obnoxious college students to shill him everywhere online. Spends all his time pandering to said college students by bribing them with promises of free shit, but like Ron Paul it doesn't matter because most of them are too lazy to actually vote.

~ The Republicans ~

Donald Trump - Our lord and savior who will free us from Satan's 1000-year reign of darkness.

Ted Cruz - The token evangelical christian candidate. Hobbies include hating the gays (he really hates them), hating trannies, denying climate change, and wanting to ban abortion because Jesus said so.

Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio/etc. - All boring as shit old white guys who all meld together. Can mostly be seen trying to force themselves to pander to the religious right while still trying to remind themselves that they're ideologically "moderates" (which is to say, sane people).

Ben Carson - A brain surgeon who's here for some reason. Ironically he's a stupider, albeit funnier version of Ted Cruz who thinks 'Hummus' is a terrorist organization, and that them evil queers are literally a plot to bring about the New World Order.

Seriously I love him so much, right next to Trump-Senpai~

Feel free to rate, comment, and subscribe thank you.

Edited by PastryOfApathy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get a real Joe McCarthy feel from Trump (and others like him).

And like Edward R. Murrow said all those years ago "The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin (2016 Trump) have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully. Cassius was right: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

History tends to repeat itself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton/Bernie are both classic puppets...Trump is a rebel but he's not quite radical enough for me. I'd much prefer someone who had their own private army, slaughtered the powers that be, burned the Constitution, and set up a benevolent authoritarian government that actually works. And if you are wondering why I don't subscribe to the Constitution, that's because it's a fallible document written by fallible human beings for another government in another time, and another place. In other words, it's outdated. That, and any document that makes the claim, "all men are created equal" is obviously based on wishful thinking.

Edited by KryptoKroenen
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing i find surprising, is that

41 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

Clinton/Bernie are both classic puppets...Trump is a rebel but he's not quite radical enough for me. I'd much prefer someone who had their own private army, slaughtered the powers that be, burned the Constitution, and set up a benevolent authoritarian government that actually works. And if you are wondering why I don't subscribe to the Constitution, that's because it's a fallible document written by fallible human beings for another government in another time, and another place. In other words, it's outdated. That, and any document that makes the claim, "all men are created equal" is obviously based on wishful thinking.

 

On 1/31/2016 at 2:18 PM, PastryOfApathy said:

Here's a basic primer about some of the potential candidates for POTUS since as an officially certified jackass on the internet, I'm scientifically proven to be a better source of information than everything else.

~ The Democrats ~

Hillary Clinton - Current 'Secretary of State', wife of former US president Bill Clinton and eternal cuck. A walking embodiment of government corruption and political shadiness and generally just an overall cunt. Still probably gonna win though simply through process of elimination so at least we'll have the first president with a vagina or something. Assuming of course she isn't some kind of lizard person of course.

Bernie Sanders - Basically the Ron Paul of 2016 but literally the exact opposite ideologically. Despite this he managed to get all the same obnoxious college students to shill him everywhere online. Spends all his time pandering to said college students by bribing them with promises of free shit, but like Ron Paul it doesn't matter because most of them are too lazy to actually vote.

~ The Republicans ~

Donald Trump - Our lord and savior who will free us from Satan's 1000-year reign of darkness.

Ted Cruz - The token evangelical christian candidate. Hobbies include hating the gays (he really hates them), hating trannies, denying climate change, and wanting to ban abortion because Jesus said so.

Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio/etc. - All boring as shit old white guys who all meld together. Can mostly be seen trying to force themselves to pander to the religious right while still trying to remind themselves that they're ideologically "moderates" (which is to say, sane people).

Ben Carson - A brain surgeon who's here for some reason. Ironically he's a stupider, albeit funnier version of Ted Cruz who thinks 'Hummus' is a terrorist organization, and that them evil queers are literally a plot to bring about the New World Order.

Seriously I love him so much, right next to Trump-Senpai~

Feel free to rate, comment, and subscribe thank you.

Yeah. I feel Ted Cruz needs a serious education regarding LGBT people, i mean this is like the 21st century. Most people have changed on their views of LGBT people.

Edited by axelthefox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2016 at 5:18 PM, PastryOfApathy said:

Here's a basic primer about some of the potential candidates for POTUS since as an officially certified jackass on the internet, I'm scientifically proven to be a better source of information than everything else.

~ The Democrats ~

Hillary Clinton - Current 'Secretary of State', wife of former US president Bill Clinton and eternal cuck. A walking embodiment of government corruption and political shadiness and generally just an overall cunt. Still probably gonna win though simply through process of elimination so at least we'll have the first president with a vagina or something. Assuming of course she isn't some kind of lizard person of course.

Bernie Sanders - Basically the Ron Paul of 2016 but literally the exact opposite ideologically. Despite this he managed to get all the same obnoxious college students to shill him everywhere online. Spends all his time pandering to said college students by bribing them with promises of free shit, but like Ron Paul it doesn't matter because most of them are too lazy to actually vote.

~ The Republicans ~

Donald Trump - Our lord and savior who will free us from Satan's 1000-year reign of darkness.

Ted Cruz - The token evangelical christian candidate. Hobbies include hating the gays (he really hates them), hating trannies, denying climate change, and wanting to ban abortion because Jesus said so.

Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio/etc. - All boring as shit old white guys who all meld together. Can mostly be seen trying to force themselves to pander to the religious right while still trying to remind themselves that they're ideologically "moderates" (which is to say, sane people).

Ben Carson - A brain surgeon who's here for some reason. Ironically he's a stupider, albeit funnier version of Ted Cruz who thinks 'Hummus' is a terrorist organization, and that them evil queers are literally a plot to bring about the New World Order.

Seriously I love him so much, right next to Trump-Senpai~

Feel free to rate, comment, and subscribe thank you.

This is why we did that ABFA Facebook post on you a few years back, Grade A+ Lulz-Master.. xD Get a Stormfront account and you'll have achieved your full potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Oh hey you're back. Yay?

Oh yeah. After the Facebook Page got taken down we invested five hundred bucks in making our own ABFA website. Half-way into the process I woke up one morning and thought, "What a fucking waste of time, I'm going to do something productive." That "productive" thing I did had something to do with the server instabilities of FA 6 months ago, but after the staff walked out they sort of finished our job for us. Ever since "the fall" I've been a lurker. ;) Good times...Good times....

Edited by KryptoKroenen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...