Tulsi Gabbard

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

maybe you can show me your evidence that the polling was garbage.

Take a look in the White House. Any sign of Hillary Clinton? Nope, didnt think so.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

I could understand you saying that if there was anything wrong with what I said but there isn't. You can see Russia Today for yourself and tracking bots/shills, whether Russian, Saudi, Iranian or Turkish is a fairly mature craft these days.

You misinterpreted a simple statement disingenuously. Tulsi Gabbard is not part of the blue tick entertainment brigade. Referring to her as part of that is false.

James Brown

SJW Lover wrote: »

You misinterpreted a simple statement disingenuously. Tulsi Gabbard is not part of the blue tick entertainment brigade. Referring to her as part of that is false.

What's the membership? People you disagree with?

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

Take a look in the White House. Any sign of Hillary Clinton? Nope, didnt think so.

You clearly don't understand what polling is if that's your argument. There are online resources available online if you want to brush up on probability and statistics if you want to get a better idea.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what polling is if that's your argument. There are online resources available online if you want to brush up on probability and statistics if you want to get a better idea.

Oh i understand polling just fine. You seemingly are having trouble with it.

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

Oh i understand polling just fine. You seemingly are having trouble with it.

Your response earlier demonstrated that you don't.

In the unlikely event that you do, maybe you can explain how the 538 predictions lining up with the result within quoted margins has anything to do with who is in the white house.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

That information that I provided can be verified. That's the great thing about the internet - you can compare the predictions with the results

If I am indeed, as you say, living in cuckoo land, maybe you can show me your evidence that the polling was garbage.

Verify this;

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-low-dnc-polls-popularity-trends/

"The reality is that since June 28 (the first day of the time in which polls can be counted towards September qualification), Gabbard has hit 2% or higher in eight different polls, which is more than the already-qualified Klobuchar and Yang.

Yet, the DNC only counts one of those as an approved poll, meaning Gabbard still needs three more polls to her resume. If she can’t do that, missing the September debates will be a de facto death blow to her campaign.

Gabbard, a staunch anti-war candidate, has been getting the ‘Ron Paul treatment’ from the DNC and the media since ABC’s first primary debate. While her appeal to the voters has been demonstrated (as she was the most googled candidate after each debate), she’s still getting push back. It seems almost improbable that Gabbard can continually pull between 2 and 3% in some polls and then struggle to register even 1% in what the DNC counts as polls."

like you the DNC like cherries.

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Verify this;

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-low-dnc-polls-popularity-trends/

"The reality is that since June 28 (the first day of the time in which polls can be counted towards September qualification), Gabbard has hit 2% or higher in eight different polls, which is more than the already-qualified Klobuchar and Yang.

Yet, the DNC only counts one of those as an approved poll, meaning Gabbard still needs three more polls to her resume. If she can’t do that, missing the September debates will be a de facto death blow to her campaign.

Gabbard, a staunch anti-war candidate, has been getting the ‘Ron Paul treatment’ from the DNC and the media since ABC’s first primary debate. While her appeal to the voters has been demonstrated (as she was the most googled candidate after each debate), she’s still getting push back. It seems almost improbable that Gabbard can continually pull between 2 and 3% in some polls and then struggle to register even 1% in what the DNC counts as polls."

like you the DNC like cherries.

The article doesn't specify what those polls were so they could have been twitter polls for all I know. That the article doesn't say what those polls were when they are almost the subject of the article leads me to believe that the author left them out deliberately.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Verify this;

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-low-dnc-polls-popularity-trends/

"The reality is that since June 28 (the first day of the time in which polls can be counted towards September qualification), Gabbard has hit 2% or higher in eight different polls, which is more than the already-qualified Klobuchar and Yang.

Yet, the DNC only counts one of those as an approved poll, meaning Gabbard still needs three more polls to her resume. If she can’t do that, missing the September debates will be a de facto death blow to her campaign.

Gabbard, a staunch anti-war candidate, has been getting the ‘Ron Paul treatment’ from the DNC and the media since ABC’s first primary debate. While her appeal to the voters has been demonstrated (as she was the most googled candidate after each debate), she’s still getting push back. It seems almost improbable that Gabbard can continually pull between 2 and 3% in some polls and then struggle to register even 1% in what the DNC counts as polls."

like you the DNC like cherries.

was she most googled because people were asking "who is she and why is trump so supportive of her?"

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

The article doesn't specify what those polls were so they could have been twitter polls for all I know. That the article doesn't say what those polls were when they are almost the subject of the article leads me to believe that the author left them out deliberately.

They must be Russian bots.

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

They must be Russian bots.

You're not making any sense.

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was she most googled because people were asking "who is she and why is trump so supportive of her?"

Trump is supportive of Tulsi Gabbard?
I think she worries him the most.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

mcmoustache wrote: »

I could understand you saying that if there was anything wrong with what I said but there isn't. You can see Russia Today for yourself and tracking bots/shills, whether Russian, Saudi, Iranian or Turkish is a fairly mature craft these days.

What’s “mature” about conspiracy theory paranoia? And why do you think that anybody who opposes American wars is alt right? Or a bot.

All of these terms are designed to shut down debate.

Tulsi is an anti war democrat. That’s it. Regardless of who else supports her that is primarily what she is.

In fact in a sane world her detractors would be seen as the far right. However we do not live in a sane world.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Trump is supportive of Tulsi Gabbard?
I think she worries him the most.

No, you're right, it wasn't trump directly supporting her. It was the russians. and they continue to do so with their many bots. In fact i suspect i'm talking to one of them right now.

mcmoustache

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What’s “mature” about conspiracy theory paranoia? And why do you think that anybody who opposes American wars is alt right? Or a bot.

Nope. I didn't say that. My claim was that Gabbard is very popular on Russia Today (you can confirm this yourself if you like. The website is publicly accessible) and bots on twitter. Again, you can check this yourself - tweets and replies are public to everyone not blocked and there are plenty of analytical tools available too.

I made no claims about anti war candidates in general so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Your response earlier demonstrated that you don't.

In the unlikely event that you do, maybe you can explain how the 538 predictions lining up with the result within quoted margins has anything to do with who is in the white house.

Here's a 538 article trying to explain why the polls were so wrong


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/


To argue that polls werent incredibly off the mark in 2016 is like trying to reason with a horse that has bolted and is no longer there.



Now, if you are going to continue being disingenuous as you have done on a few threads with me in the past few weeks (how's the search for my re-reg status going by the way) then i am going to have to start ignoring you. I wont put you on block because i enjoy your posts (albeit not in the way you'd like).

SJW Lover

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What’s “mature” about conspiracy theory paranoia? And why do you think that anybody who opposes American wars is alt right? Or a bot.

All of these terms are designed to shut down debate.

Tulsi is an anti war democrat. That’s it. Regardless of who else supports her that is primarily what she is.

In fact in a sane world her detractors would be seen as the far right. However we do not live in a sane world.

Its amazing how pro-war all of these "anti-Trumpers" are. I guess they prefer their murder sugarcoated with a winning smile and some comedic timing as during the Obama years.

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No, you're right, it wasn't trump directly supporting her. It was the russians. and they continue to do so with their many bots. In fact i suspect i'm talking to one of them right now.

Da tovarish. Open your eyes.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nope. I didn't say that. My claim was that Gabbard is very popular on Russia Today (you can confirm this yourself if you like.

Can you strain yourself as to considering why this might be the case?



She is an anti-war democratic candidate in a country whose foreign policy has been unsubtle imperialism for decades. Why wouldnt Russia, or any sane person, like that?

SJW Lover

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was she most googled because people were asking "who is she and why is trump so supportive of her?"

No. Its because she is an army veteran who has served in areas of conflict yet here she is telling the American public that wars and imperialism are wrong. That makes her stand out from the crowd. It's certainly why she stands out to me.


Your above comment really just highlights the lack of any critical thought you have put into this.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nope. I didn't say that. My claim was that Gabbard is very popular on Russia Today (you can confirm this yourself if you like. The website is publicly accessible) and bots on twitter.

The former may be true but so what. The second is pure guesswork.

Again, you can check this yourself - tweets and replies are public to everyone not blocked and there are plenty of analytical tools available too.

Really? Analytical tools, no less. And those tools can catch Russians but not, say Israelis, or anybody else who might be pro war. Is a boy just someone who disagrees.

I made no claims about anti war candidates in general so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I believed that I spoke in general terms. Anyway all candidates who have an anti war position are accused of being Russian stooges.

Edit. I should perhaps have in my second sentence been less specific.

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

Here's a 538 article trying to explain why the polls were so wrong


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/


To argue that polls werent incredibly off the mark in 2016 is like trying to reason with a horse that has bolted and is no longer there.



Now, if you are going to continue being disingenuous as you have done on a few threads with me in the past few weeks (how's the search for my re-reg status going by the way) then i am going to have to start ignoring you. I wont put you on block because i enjoy your posts (albeit not in the way you'd like).

Some polls will be sh!te and other polls will be good. That's not news so of course some will be off the mark. For example, my twitter poll of three mates will be rubbish while professional polsters with larger and more representative sampling and so on will be better.





What 538 does is aggregates them based on past performance and 538 was the most popular reference that people were using. And it's model was very accurate so to make a sweeping generalisation that the polls were rubbish when their weighted average was extremely close to the result is not accurate.







Also, I don't recall saying that I would find out your previous accounts. You must be confusing me with someone else.

mcmoustache

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The former may be true but so what. The second is pure guesswork.


Really? Analytical tools, no less. And those tools can catch Russians but not, say Israelis, or anybody else who might be pro war. Is a boy just someone who disagrees.

I grant that analysing bots and shills has an element of guesswork but it's not impossible. And I never said they can't catch Israelis and I don't recall seeing anyone else make that claim. I'm around long enough to remember the megaphone shills on newsgroups to know that Israel have been engaging in serious propaganda war online for donkey's years.


Disinformation is cheap nowadays and if an adversary of the US wasn't doing it, they would be negligent.

Overheal

Clinton seems to think Russia will back Tulsi Gabbard. I could see it, Tulsi isn’t a big team player

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-suggests-putin-has-kompromat-trump-russians-will-back-tulsi-gabbard-third-party-bid/

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Clinton seems to think Russia will back Tulsi Gabbard. I could see it, Tulsi isn’t a big team player

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-suggests-putin-has-kompromat-trump-russians-will-back-tulsi-gabbard-third-party-bid/

It's behind a paywall, can you provide a synopsis please?

Overheal

Here’s a reblog

On the phone so copying WaPo is eh.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/hillary-clinton-claims-russians-are-grooming-a-female-2020-dem-candidate-for-third-party-run/

Not sure how jokey she was

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Here’s a reblog

On the phone so copying WaPo is eh.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/hillary-clinton-claims-russians-are-grooming-a-female-2020-dem-candidate-for-third-party-run/

Thanks.

Spencerfreeman

“I’m not making any predictions,” Clinton told David Plouffe on his podcast Campaign HQ before going on to speculate one of the candidates was supported by Russia and that they’re going to encourage a third-party campaign to help tip the election to President Donald Trump.

“I think they’ve got their eye somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s a favorite of the Russians,” she said around the 35 minute mark in the podcast. “They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

A nothing piece. Names nobody, but I hope she means Gabbard, Clintons disapproval will do wonders for her support.

mcmoustache

Well, she's not taking it lying down.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

Well, she's not taking it lying down.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464

Good for her. She has been slandered brutally for the last few years by the democrat establishment. Called a Russian asset which is essentially accusing someone of treason who actually fronted up and went and fought in a war while horrors like Clinton backed those disgusting wars.

Also the idea that has been floated by **** stirrers like Neera Tanden that she would run as a third candidate to ensure Trump would win is disgusting.

She still won't crack 3% and her support of Hindu nationalism is troubling nonetheless but enough is enough I think.