Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Options
1…129130132134135…331

Comments

  • Options
    #3932
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    But they simply didn't - That's just another Trump talking point as part of the war on the media and facts. The polls didn't get the result wrong just like he didn't win by a landslide.

    In the early stages Clinton had a solid lead that Trump steadily closed and the last rounds of polls just before the election were pretty much spot on in terms of Votes captured Nation-wide and given that the differential between the two was within the margin of error they were quite accurate.

    You can see the historical data here

    The suggestion that the polls were inaccurate is just plain wrong , not dissimilar to the same incorrect viewpoints about the Brexit result.

    Almost every mainstream source were predicting a landslide victory for Clinton

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html%3famp

    Here is one example. I saw news stations with as high a probability as 99% that Clinton would win.

    Perhaps more in-depth polling may have been closer, but ones that were promoted definitely showed Clinton to be almost unassailable in her lead.


  • Options
    #3933
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,985 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Almost every mainstream source were predicting a landslide victory for Clinton

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html%3famp

    Here is one example. I saw news stations with as high a probability as 99% that Clinton would win.

    Perhaps more in-depth polling may have been closer, but ones that were promoted definitely showed Clinton to be almost unassailable in her lead.

    That's just one example though. You can't judge every poll based on that.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Options
    #3934
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    That's just one example though. You can't judge every poll based on that.

    MSNBC seem to agree that nobody saw it coming

    https://youtu.be/MhT5qT116wo


  • Options
    #3935
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Too funny. Trevor Noah's (of The Daily Show) team created a Joe Biden 'insult bot' on Twitter that parodies Biden’s style of insulting everyday people.

    https://mashable.com/article/joe-biden-insult-bot-twitter/

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3936
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Much closer but still overwhelmingly confident that Clinton would win from CNN a little under two weeks out

    https://youtu.be/kb7ToA1D86U

    I'm just saying that while perhaps accurate polling data from polling specialists may have predicted a tight contest, the media were doing nothing of the sort.

    I know personally I took my news from news stations and not polling statistic sites and it was made clear that trump didn't stand a chance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3937
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Too funny. Trevor Noah's (of The Daily Show) team created a Joe Biden 'insult bot' on Twitter that parodies Biden’s style of insulting everyday people.

    https://mashable.com/article/joe-biden-insult-bot-twitter/

    Too funny and Trevor Noah...

    Didn't expect to see those words together


  • Options
    #3938
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,985 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Deleted User wrote: »
    MSNBC seem to agree that nobody saw it coming

    https://youtu.be/MhT5qT116wo

    That's not my point. That's not an analysis of the polls, it just a short news clip.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Options
    #3939
    extra gravy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,625 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Too funny. Trevor Noah's (of The Daily Show) team created a Joe Biden 'insult bot' on Twitter that parodies Biden’s style of insulting everyday people.

    https://mashable.com/article/joe-biden-insult-bot-twitter/

    You're easily amused.


  • Options
    #3940
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,602 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    TheRepentent wrote: »
    President Turd is gunning for twitter now cos they pulled him up on the sh1te he posts. Would love it if they would properly enforced their policies and kick the muppet of the platform.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0527/1143066-trump-social-media/

    They should just remind him that he agreed to THEIR T&C's when he joined the site, if he doesn't like it then he is free to take his business elsewhere.


  • Options
    #3941
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    So here's what the most recent Center for Disease Control report pretty much admitted regarding the coronavirus...

    Lockdowns did nothing and millions were infected anyway, in the US COVID-19 epidemic was basically a bad flu season exacerbated by nursing home fiasco, it was not nearly as lethal or harmful as advertised, the models were wrong, and no interventions did anything productive.

    So continue to wear your mystical (non)protective masks and vote by mail in the presidential election because... well, just because, DAMMIT!

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3942
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    extra gravy wrote: »
    You're easily amused.
    Tell it to the judge ya tap dancin' bellywobbler. :p

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3943
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    That's not my point. That's not an analysis of the polls, it just a short news clip.

    Which is my point. Most people get their need from the news reports on television, not from poll sites who were undoubtedly more accurate.

    What was reported on almost every news station was that Clinton could pretty much not lose and that trump supporters were ignorant and to be made fun of (just look at any talk show hosts monologues).

    A lot of people on social media and in public didn't want to be thought of like that so didn't vocalise their intent to vote for trump, causing a vicious cycle of the media intensifying their claims that trump had no support.

    media and advertising don't GIVE the public what they want. They TELL the public what they want and then sell it to them


  • Options
    #3944
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    I see America's move to becoming a soviet bloc era statelet is almost complete with Trump looking to stifle speech he doesn't like on social media.
    Why are the Americans taking this? If it was France there would be an uprising.


  • Options
    #3945
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Bowie wrote: »
    I see America's move to becoming a soviet bloc era statelet is almost complete with Trump looking to stifle speech he doesn't like on social media.
    Why are the Americans taking this? If it was France there would be an uprising.
    The French would start an uprising if their leader asked for fairness and unbiased actions by the providers of social media platforms? Wow, those French must be one tough crowd.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3946
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,602 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The French would start an uprising if their leader asked for fairness and unbiased actions by the providers of social media platforms? Wow, those French must be one tough crowd.

    Simple question for you

    Should Trump be allowed to break the T&C's that he agreed to when he signed up to Twitter?

    I don't care about anyone else I just want your opinion on the question I have asked above.


  • Options
    #3947
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bowie wrote: »
    I see America's move to becoming a soviet bloc era statelet is almost complete with Trump looking to stifle speech he doesn't like on social media.
    Why are the Americans taking this? If it was France there would be an uprising.

    Jesus that's hyperbolic.

    Unless I've read it very arse ways, has trump not said that if one side of an opinion is subject to fact checking then the other should be too in order to ensure that there is no political bias on the world's biggest social media site in the leadup to an election?

    I don't agree with most of trump's tweets but to compare it to Soviet Russia is bizarrely inappropriate and undermines any point you were trying to make.


  • Options
    #3948
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I
    That's why in my opinion every opinion poll had trump losing in 2016 by a landslide. People were afraid to admit they would vote for him because of his daily slaughter from "news" programmes and late night talk show monologues

    Every opinion poll didn't have Trump losing in a landslide. I don't think a single one did.

    Most polls were pretty accurate nationally, Hilary won the populace vote. On a state by state basis, every state that unexpectedly went red was in the margin for error. So they may not have been expected wins for Trump, but they absolutely shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone who understands how polls work.

    Statistically the election was a toss up.

    I post this every couple of weeks. But the right wing media embedded this false narrative so deeply in people's minds I have to post it regularly. Same with Brexit, it was also statistically a toss up .

    I would say what won the election from Trump more than any other single factor was the wall to wall coverage he got from the media. The same media he now constantly attacks.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #3949
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Simple question for you

    Should Trump be allowed to break the T&C's that he agreed to when he signed up to Twitter?

    I don't care about anyone else I just want your opinion on the question I have asked above.
    I believe they arbitrarily changed their rules and in doing so lost their protection under Section 230 when they decided to shame and wrongly fact-check Trump. That’s what I think.

    But under their original rules they could always just ban Trump. Let's see them try that.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3950
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Who knew Twitter was run by a bunch of heevahavas.

    In one fell swoop they not only destroyed their protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that provides platforms like Twitter immunity from liability for what users post on the platform, they brought the wrath of the President of the US down upon on them for their highly questionable and subjective ‘fact-check.'

    Twitter should have looked at the lawsuit brought by Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and the California Republican Party against Governor Gavin Newsom of California for illegally capitalizing on the coronavirus crisis to unilaterally change California voting laws, and 'cited many experts and news reports demonstrating the abuse vote by mail enables.' The GOP makes a strong case in the lawsuit. Hell, Twitter probably did but Trump Derangement Syndrome must have caused them to act in haste without any clear thinking. (I wonder if Twitter can use the temporary insanity defense when the libel lawsuits start coming in?)

    Trump has tweeted he will not allow Twitters interference in the 2020 Presidential election to happen.



    There is not much Trump can probably do to Twitter unless the laws governing Twitter are changed, which requires an act of Congress. But Trump can use the bully pulpit to encourage people to now sue Twitter for libel as they’ve destroyed their Section 230 protection. So unless Twitter starts to fact-check all ‘questionable’ political tweets, and not just ones from conservatives and republicans, they’re in for a world of hurt.



    In related news I’ll be voting in our primary next week, and I’ll be doing so IN-PERSON, not by mail. So hurry up and get your digs in against me quickly because by voting in-person it’s inevitable I’ll contract COVID19 and die... or so says our lovely liberal democrats governors, who think they’re kings and queens and disregard the fact that governors do not have the authority to change election laws because that responsibility rests with their legislatures.

    Even when he gets to say what he wants, he's a victim eh?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #3951
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Ah, revisionist history on the 2016 election... Dontcha love it?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3952
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,602 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe they arbitrarily changed their rules and in doing so lost their protection under Section 230 when they decided to shame and wrongly fact-check Trump. That’s what I think.

    But under their original rules they could always just ban Trump. Let's see them try that.

    What you believe is wrong, nice try at not answering the question though, I expected nothing less from you.

    If Trump doesn't like following the rules he could always close his Twitter account and rant from another platform.

    It's beautiful watching him foam at the mouth about Twitter....on Twitter :pac:


  • Options
    #3953
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brian? wrote: »
    Every opinion poll didn't have Trump losing in a landslide. I don't think a single one did.

    Most polls were pretty accurate nationally, Hilary won the populace vote. On a state by state basis, every state that unexpectedly went red was in the margin for error. So they may not have been expected wins for Trump, but they absolutely shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone who understands how polls work.

    Statistically the election was a toss up.

    I post this every couple of weeks. But the right wing media embedded this false narrative so deeply in people's minds I have to post it regularly. Same with Brexit, it was also statistically a toss up .

    I would say what won the election from Trump more than any other single factor was the wall to wall coverage he got from the media. The same media he now constantly attacks.

    The independent, CNN, MSNBC, the young Turks... I could go on.

    They are all right wing? They all said Hillary would win comfortably?


  • Options
    #3954
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Brian? wrote: »
    Even when he gets to say what he wants, he's a victim eh?
    Where have you been? Trump is viscously attacked whenever his says ANYTHING!

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3955
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,602 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Where have you been? Trump is viscously attacked whenever his says ANYTHING!

    So is Biden

    So Is Clinton

    So is Obama

    Where's your outrage for them?


  • Options
    #3956
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Around and around we go


  • Options
    #3957
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Where have you been? Trump is viscously attacked whenever his says ANYTHING!

    That's because everything he says is either a lie or horsesh1t.


  • Options
    #3958
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The independent, CNN, MSNBC, the young Turks... I could go on.

    They are all right wing? They all said Hillary would win comfortably?

    Newspapers across The States endourced Hillary by an unprecedented margin...

    500 newspapers endourced Hillary v 28 newspapers who endourced Trump.

    Luckily for most people, nobody cares what the media are ramming down our throats anymore across the developed world...they have lost their relevancy they have no one to blame but themselves....abandoning standards and balance will be the death of that industry as we know it.

    Print/TV media have become the twitter mob!!


  • Options
    #3959
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    What you believe is wrong, nice try at not answering the question though, I expected nothing less from you.

    If Trump doesn't like following the rules he could always close his Twitter account and rant from another platform.

    It's beautiful watching him foam at the mouth about Twitter....on Twitter :pac:
    When Twitter selectively targets applies rules to ONLY certain users and groups then they break their own rules.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3960
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So is Biden

    So Is Clinton

    So is Obama

    Where's your outrage for them?
    100 to 1 ratio is not a fair comparison.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3961
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,602 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    When Twitter selectively targets applies rules to ONLY certain users and groups then they break their own rules.

    So why doesn't he close his account if he feels he is being treated unfairly?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement