Clinton 2016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you just engaging in faux outrage here? What Clinton said is what virtually every politician says. There's absolutely nothing surprising there. Before 2016, this is what was considered typical political lying.

Must be great relying on info obtained by Russia and Assange by the way.

---

The information is credible and the Clinton has not called it false so the Russia/Assange charge is silly.

One would expect Clinton to actually state what her honest positions are. Is she for free trade or not? Is she for the TPP or not? If you say one thing behind closed doors and another to the voters that's not political lying, that's just lying. Politicians promise things that don't happen due to reality and a need to work with others via compromise, that's one thing, this is quite clearly another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The information is credible and the Clinton has not called it false so the Russia/Assange charge is silly.

One would expect Clinton to actually state what her honest positions are. Is she for free trade or not? Is she for the TPP or not? If you say one thing behind closed doors and another to the voters that's not political lying, that's just lying. Politicians promise things that don't happen due to reality and a need to work with others via compromise, that's one thing, this is quite clearly another.

---

So you're happy to allow traitors and enemies to influence the American election?

And this is different from what McCain and particularly Romney did in the previous election cycles? Wasn't surprising (or extraordinary) then and it's not now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So you're happy to allow traitors and enemies to influence the American election?

And this is different from what McCain and particularly Romney did in the previous election cycles? Wasn't surprising (or extraordinary) then and it's not now.

---

Information is information. As long as it is accurate why should you care about the source when it comes to reacting to the information? I do think people who sell state secrets should be prosecuted but once those secrets are out... they are absolutely fair political game.

Clinton: running the most honest presidential campaign since 2004.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...st-elections-/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Information is information. As long as it is accurate why should you care about the source when it comes to reacting to the information?

---

This is just absolutely fucking hilarious in light of your comments in the other thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The information is credible and the Clinton has not called it false so the Russia/Assange charge is silly.

One would expect Clinton to actually state what her honest positions are. Is she for free trade or not? Is she for the TPP or not? If you say one thing behind closed doors and another to the voters that's not political lying, that's just lying. Politicians promise things that don't happen due to reality and a need to work with others via compromise, that's one thing, this is quite clearly another.

---

You're deluded if you think Trump is any different. Too many people give him a pass because he hasn't spent his adult life as an elected official, but he's definitely been a "political animal" for decades, exploiting things like lobbyists and tax laws for his own benefit.

He criticizes the political and structural deficiencies that made him a billionaire....and somehow makes people believe he'll change the status quo? He's even got Republican Party officials buying his snake oil. :picard:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This is just absolutely fucking hilarious in light of your comments in the other thread.

---

I put the qualifier as "as long as it is accurate." Politfact has absolutely rated comments made (for example) by Trump and Bernie differently even though they were both off on the % of unemployed blacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You're deluded if you think Trump is any different. Too many people give him a pass because he hasn't spent his adult life as an elected official, but he's definitely been a "political animal" for decades, exploiting things like lobbyists and tax laws for his own benefit.

He criticizes the political and structural deficiencies that made him a billionaire....and somehow makes people believe he'll change the status quo? He's even got Republican Party officials buying his snake oil. :picard:

---

Nah I don't actually believe him. Which is why in the other thread I said something along the lines of "Clinton will absolutely be bad, Trump might be bad." Basically there is a chance Trump will hold onto the positions he's previously espoused. With Clinton I know its more big government looming.

EDIT: And of course it will make people like you and Loki go bananas if Trump actually wins. ;)

Good to know that only libruls care about this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Nah I don't actually believe him. Which is why in the other thread I said something along the lines of "Clinton will absolutely be bad, Trump might be bad." Basically there is a chance Trump will hold onto the positions he's previously espoused. With Clinton I know its more big government looming.

EDIT: And of course it will make people like you and Loki go bananas if Trump actually wins. ;)

---

You're deluded if you think Clinton will be the big, bad government wolf conservatives have been railing about. She's more like a moderate Republican than a left-of-center Democrat. (That's why Bernie Sanders was her biggest competitor during the Democrat primaries.) She's a military hawk, which appeals to the establishment GOP.

You assume a Hillary Clinton Presidential Administration will automatically mean a whole host of things.....but you refuse to assume certain things under a Donald Trump Presidential Administration. How does that work? I mean, how do you compartmentalize this way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I put the qualifier as "as long as it is accurate." Politfact has absolutely rated comments made (for example) by Trump and Bernie differently even though they were both off on the % of unemployed blacks.

---

It's clear you haven't read the assessments you're referring to and are just parroting republican talking points. The differences in their ratings stem from the fact that the Sanders campaign was honest about the definitions and the data they used whereas the Trump campaign was not. The article about Trump's claim was indeed written in a less favorable way than the one about Sanders's claim, but the ratings themselves are accurate. And this is why we show our work Lewk Jr.

Politicians are good at massaging "poll" results to their own benefit. Polls are often cited as "scientific" even when they're not (because the sampling size is too small). Aggregate polls aren't much better, when they include small sample distortions.

But we're a culture that believes popular *oponion* can be measured, and turned into scientific data, which can then anticipate outcomes. Even though outcomes like Brexit prove otherwise. The only poll that really matters happens in the election booth.

Dewey Wins!

Sampling size is not a major issue in polling. :bored: There are lots of statistical issues, but this is not one.

And yes, opinion can be measured. Can it be measured perfectly? No. Is it far more accurate than any alternative? Definitely. Trust GGT to take a luddite position. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Politicians are good at massaging "poll" results to their own benefit. Polls are often cited as "scientific" even when they're not (because the sampling size is too small). Aggregate polls aren't much better, when they include small sample distortions.

But we're a culture that believes popular *opinion* can be measured, and turned into scientific data, which can then anticipate outcomes.

---

It can, with some caveats and some uncertainty.

Sample size does not tend to be as great a problem as other problems with sampling (such as systematically sampling the wrong portion or a non-representative portion of the population) and modeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Sampling size is not a major issue in polling. :bored: There are lots of statistical issues, but this is not one.

And yes, opinion can be measured. Trust GGT to take a luddite position. :bored:

---

Many polls are conducted via phone, but there are rules/regulations preventing robo-dialing cell phones. Even land lines with answering machines aren't adequately "capturing data". Bloomberg has charts showing that survey polls aren't necessarily comprehensive nor reliably predictive.

That's not me being a luddite. :bored:

And none of that has anything to do with sample size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And none of that has anything to do with sample size.

---

So what makes you trust "the polls" are accurate?

Having actually learned statistics (things like the central limit theorem and the law of large numbers) and how polling works. Sample size is not a problem. The way questions are asked is a problem. The way the sample is chosen is a problem. The way samples are weighed to reflect the population is a problem. High non-response rates are a problem. Herding in the polling industry is a problem. Sample size is not. In fact, having samples that are too large can be problematic in itself (non-independence of observations). And when I say those things are a problem, I don't mean that they're necessarily being done incorrectly; it's that there's many legitimate ways of doing it, but differences in those methods produce somewhat different results. There's no full-proof solution to this, though a poll of polls goes a long way towards minimizing bias of various kinds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Having actually learned statistics (things like the central limit theorem and the law of large numbers) and how polling works. Sample size is not a problem. The way questions are asked is a problem. The way the sample is chosen is a problem. The way samples are weighed to reflect the popular is a problem. High non-response rates are a problem. Herding in the polling industry is a problem. Sample size is not. In fact, having samples that are too large can be problematic in itself (non-independence of observations). And when I say those things are a problem, I don't mean that they're necessarily being done incorrectly; it's that there's many legitimate ways of doing it, but differences in those methods produce somewhat different results. There's no full-proof solution to this, though a poll of polls goes a long way towards minimizing bias of various kinds.

---

Dewey Wins! :rolleyes: Trump will never be the Republican nominee! :rolleyes: Brexit will never happen! :rolleyes:

Non-random sample. :bored:

uh huh, polls have their limits.

Thank for that illuminating response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Thank for that illuminating response.

---

No need to be smug. The truth is *polling* isn't the scientific data collection it's purported to be. Not since 9 out of 10 doctors surveyed said Lucky Strike was the best cigarette, or that half of all dentists surveyed said Colgate was the best toothpaste. :rolleyes:

The truth is, you made a dubious claim about the reason why polls may be inaccurate and haven't bothered to acknowledge any of the real problems that have been brought up. Come on man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc

---

You become more of an embarrassment for every day that passes.

Goes to show that even mainstream Republicans have now entered the fact-free zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You become more of an embarrassment for every day that passes.

---

The youtube link is direct audio. I enjoy how you feel like its vital to 'correctly interpret' what her actual words mean. Let people decide of themselves. ;)

Listening to it was pretty clear she found the situation amusing. There are two possible facts.

1. Hillary thinks he was guilty and enjoyed getting her client 'off' with what amounted to a slap on the wrist.
2. Hillary thinks he was innocent and chuckles about how she quickly resolved the case and got an innocent man jailed.

I don't really find anything amusing about the case at all but I'm not Hillary Clinton.

Of course we can always ask the victim what she thought about it all...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ctim-says.html

"According to Thrush’s article, the victim didn’t fault Clinton for her defense of the attacker during their 2008 interview, which took place in the prison where the victim was serving time for drug-related offenses, in the presence of the warden. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job,” he quoted the victim as saying. After all, everyone has a right to be defended in court. And 1975 was a lifetime ago.
But the victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.
“If I had known that day what I know now I would have told him exactly what I’m telling y’all today,” she said.
After she was released from prison in 2008, the victim read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
“I started seeing where I had really been stomped in the ground. I didn’t really know what to do about it. I just figured life would have to go on and I would have to live with it,” she said.
But after hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.
“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.
The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested. But that wasn’t the end of her ordeal.
She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Of course we can always ask the victim what she thought about it all...

---

Yeah but perhaps we can first verify that the things we link to in support of our dumbass views aren't in fact just plain bullshit. You should do your damn' homework and you should read up on the issue before trying to use someone's suffering to score points that you haven't earned yourself. Clinton did her job. She also got him to cop to a plea deal rather than get away completely, and this plea deal was pushed for by the victim's mother in order to spare the girl from the ordeal of a protracted trial where she'd have to listen to the kind of stuff people like you say about rape victims. Clinton expressed regret at the fact that the perpetrator had been able to pass a polygraph test. She was also not the only person involved in the trial and any criticism you may have of her should also be directed at several other players, eg. the judge and the prosecutor. Do your damn' homework and use whatever is left of your goddamn' brain before you decide to post something so that we don't have to deal with with this incessant bullshit.

Btw, coming from a rape-apologist who has just recently expressed views of the kind that make rape-victims feel like shit and let rapists get away with raping their wives this stuff is just too rich for words.