I did a research paper this summer on this subreddit and there was a published study that found that 74% of attacks on Reddit came from 1% of source subreddits. I assume that subs like r/Drama are the 1%.
Because did you look at where he is speaking? The Asians and Latino coalition. He also threw in a “as smart as black kids.” Which is ironic because Asians are the smartest of all
Because this is unironically how the far left actually feels about black people, it's just taboo to admit it out loud. It's also why 1) this won't be more than a little bluster for Biden and 2) Every time Trump uses the words "Imigrants" and "Americans" the left thinks he's saying "browns" and "whites". It's literally projection.
Uh the DDF absolutely wouldn't shut up about it nor did anyone else. Her people pretty much picked her up and put her into the SUV as she was passing out. Your memory is just off.
This is true. I'm a rightoid but, my friends, this news was everywhere. Remember A SIDE OF BEEF? I was making fun of her with my normie office jerb coworkers in Canada. The leftie news brought on a bunch of doctors who definitely weren't paid under the table to say that Hay Clay was perfectly healthy and just exhausted from the campaign.
It really only blew up when it became apparent they couldn't hide it anymore. It took a few days for it to go all over the internet and become unignorable before they decided to talk about this.
Naw you could see the cope happening live in the /r/politics thread it went from she's so strong for going while she has a flu, it's superhot out there,I'd pass out too, what do you mean it's not hot there, sideofbeef.gif
You just misremembered like a 20min span as being longer
Possibly my favourite part of that saga was when Dems started rolling out the "FDR was in a wheelchair and he was a great president" after months of saying HRC (Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key) was fine and it was all just an absurd conspiracy that anything was wrong with her.
fortunately the more deranged part of her fanbase (plus the bernouts I guess) gave them plenty of material in the short term by rioting for the next week.
Her immediate illness during the campaign was certainly covered up and brushed aside by elements of the media. Even after she collapsed, there was a good few days before her campaign decided this wasn't going away, and they released the pneumonia info.
Of course they're going to ignore all the legitimate questions in favor of amplifying the 'crazy conspiracies from the deranged rethuglicans'.
Where was the explanation for her disappearing from the campaign trail for over a week? There wasn't one. All the reasonable concerns were brushed aside until that position was untenable.
That's the tactic they chose to run with, and it backfired bigly because then it made the pneumonia admission sound like it still wasn't the whole story.
because she didn't reveal she was diagnosed with pneumonia the very hour she was told.
It was clear she was acutely unwell before that. She had multiple noticeable absences from the campaign trail. And when she was around, she didn't look so good. A lot of the health theories were retarded, but they weren't based on nothing.
If she was denying the medical problem, why reveal it that soon?
Because it was the least bad option at that point. They had to get ahead of the story. The optics of collapsing into the back of a car at the 9/11 ceremony were just too damaging.
It allowed them to move directly on to the "she's so badass for campaigning with pneumonia" spin.
It was clear she was acutely unwell before that. She had multiple noticeable absences from the campaign trail. And when she was around, she didn't look so good. A lot of the health theories were retarded, but they weren't based on nothing.
But we have medical records showing she was diagnosed the previous the Friday, so your argument doesn't hold water.
Because it was the least bad option at that point. They had to get ahead of the story. The optics of collapsing into the back of a car at the 9/11 ceremony were just too damaging.
Or, you know, she's an old woman and likely thought she'd be fine, was medicated, and simply overestimated her ability to deal with the illness. When something happened in public, she revealed it within a few hours.
But we have medical records showing she was diagnosed the previous the Friday, so your argument doesn't hold water
An infection can take weeks to develop into pneumonia. It's also very hard for an otherwise fit person to develop full blown pneumonia when it's 70 degrees out.
She was on video coughing up thick lumps of green phlegm before that diagnosis. Even if they didn't know what was wrong, they knew it was something. Everyone with eyes knew there was something.
When something happened in public, she revealed it within a few hours.
Her campaign manager decided it was the right move. Prior to that, her campaign manager decided it wasn't.
An infection can take weeks to develop into pneumonia. It's also very hard for an otherwise fit person to develop full blown pneumonia when it's 70 degrees out.
I don't disagree that it could take weeks. But that's just a point in my favor, if Clinton didn't know about it, how can she be hiding it?
She was on video coughing up thick lumps of green phlegm before that diagnosis. Even if they didn't know what was wrong, they knew it was something. Everyone with eyes knew there was something.
That's just factually incorrect. I cough up mucus often. That's a symptom of a bunch of different problems, from the common cold to things that are much worse.
Her campaign manager decided it was the right move. Prior to that, her campaign manager decided it wasn't.
Because there's no need to reveal something like that, if you believe it's under control.
It was literally denied that she had any health problems despite obvious signs of something being seriously off, the people making those allegations were called conspiracy theorists, and then, finally after collapsing like a sack of bricks on live tv after weeks of weird behavior, they said oh she just has a little pneumonia
It was never denied she had any health problems at all.
In fact, she revealed pneumonia that day I believe. A few hours after? Like what exactly is your claim here, that Clinton denied she had health problems because she didn't instantly, that hour, reveal she had pneumonia?
Furthermore, she was diagnosed with pneumonia the previous friday, she hadn't had it for weeks and I have no idea where you got that from.
It was absolutely denied by people in the media and her campaign didn't admit she had pneumonia until she collapsed on national tv, and even that was damage control. She had been obviously unwell with SOMETHING for quite some time
The pnuemonia was just her campaign's pr spin, she had been clearly sick for months, which is where all the speculation came from. Dude, the election's over, you don't have to live like this anymore.
The sheer number of pictures of her ass with a poo stain on it during the election really...idk...blew me away I guess. Some were photo shopped...but others...idk man, looked like poo on her ass.
The thought that someone was pushing these to paint her health as non-presidential is actually kind of funny now in hindsight.
if it goes mute it'll be brought back from the dead by GOP news after the primaries whether he's the candidate or not; soundbite is too juicy to go silent forever
It's what the people want. Merit-based voting license democracy when? We unironically need to oppress the dumbest 30%-or-so of our species if we want to survive.
Swing Voters are a appealed to demographic and they are literally too dumb to make up their minds/don't pay attention literally at all to politics until the last moment.
They decide who is president and my god that's the most american thing I can think of i'm so proud.
That was originally how the American system worked. You had to be a male landowner in order to vote. Then we eventually let all the men vote so they'd have a say in whether we went to war or not. About twenty years after that we fucked up royally and let the foids have a vote, and it's all been downhill ever since. We eventually countered the Basic Becky vote by making sure the blacks could vote, but by then the damage was done and it was too late.
We eventually countered the Basic Becky vote by making sure the blacks could vote
don’t basic betties and darkies (when there’s not that 75% overlap 😏) tend to vote demoncrat in similar percentages? i’d be really surprised if the 2 least capable demographics in america voted against each other
Trump lost all 3 debates by some of the largest margins since we've been recording.
Debates don't matter that much anymore outside of a primary. If they did, Trump would have lost sometime around the time he gave some huge incoherent speech about Syria that didn't make any sense, or attacked poor Americans for not paying taxes while at the same time bragging about not paying taxes as a billionaire.
LOL the fact you actually believe this AND have the gall to respond to any of my posts with your idiotic dribble about unscientific polls.
How are they unscientific? Explain to me the how they're wrong, in detail please.
I'm so surprised you don't remember the 2004 Presidential debate where they only polled people who actually watched the debates instead of everyone
That isn't how debate polling works. You look at national poll bumps after debates. It's pretty basic, the same way you look for convention bumps for example.
How are they unscientific? Explain to me the how they're wrong, in detail please.
No i'm not interested in your autistic quagmire, I've already told you last time you bored me and refused to stop filling my inbox with boring posts I could get from /r/poltiics anytime I want, if you can't figure out the difference between actual scientific polls and popsci ones that's on you.
No i'm not interested in your autistic quagmire, I've already told you last time you bored me and refused to stop filling my inbox with boring posts I could get from /r/poltiics anytime I want, if you can't figure out the difference between actual scientific polls and popsci ones that's on you.
So for the people watching in. I'll translate this for you: "I have no ability to explain how polling is usncientific because I have no understanding of polling myself and simply repeat things I've heard other people with no understanding of polling day."
You understand we have around 50 years of data showing the accuracy of polls, yes?
Lmao
Are you denying that years of data exists showing the accuracy of polling?
You literally don't know the poll I'm talking about, what I said is literally what they did you cretin, go get info instead of sperging out.
It doesn't matter what poll you're talking about. The metric you think is used to score debates is nott the actual metric used to score debates. You very clearly do not know what you are talking about.
(CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry fared better than President Bush in Thursday night's presidential debate, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 615 registered voters who watched the event.
Because the poll questioned only people who watched the debate
Here's your post again so you can maybe figure out and admit you were wrong for once but I doubt it
where they only polled people who actually watched the debates instead of everyone
That isn't how debate polling works. You look at national poll bumps after debates. It's pretty basic, the same way you look for convention bumps for example.
You're literally too stupid to figure out I'm talking about why would I be interested in talking to you? I'm not going to take the time to post everything I know about how to conduct actual science polls you should be smart enough to figure out why.
Again, you are literally too dumb to understand my posts and it makes it boring to interact with you because you just are so boring.
So again, we see no detailed explanation for how polls are wrong or unscientific.
Because the poll questioned only people who watched the debate
Yeah, that's called a post debate poll. You poll people that, you know, actually watched the debate. How could you possibly get a valid answer as to who won a debate if you asked people that didn't watch the debate? A psot debate poll is not the only metric used to score a debate, you've been told this 4 times now and seemingly can't comprehend what is being said to you.
You're literally too stupid to figure out I'm talking about why would I be interested in talking to you? I'm not going to take the time to post everything I know about how to conduct actual science polls you should be smart enough to figure out why.
You're even more incoherent than usual today sir. Your argument makes no sense, you seem to be angry that a post--debate poll (one of like 5 metrics used to score a debate win) only polled people that... watched the debate? How could someone that didn't watch the debate have a valid opinion on who won said debate?
I don't think that's the case, I think you're reading it incorrectly, which makes sense because it's worded poorly.
I believe it's a poll of 615 registered voters, not people that were physically in the audience of the debate.
You'll have to link me the actual poll so I can read the methodology too be sure. And either way, this wouldn't refute my argument. Even if what you said was true, it doesn't refute anything I said. You seem to think an example of an audience being interviewed means debates are scored that way, they aren't.
The poll you cited says as much:
Because the poll questioned only people who watched the debate, its results do not statistically represent the views of all Americans, and in all cases the margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Wow i'm so surprised you doubled down who could have seen this totally unforeseen post happening it's not boring and predictable at all.
not people that were physically in the audience of the debate.
Yea if only there was part of that CNN article that says they were literally the debate audience and CNN polled them live on telvision in front of everyone, that would sure make you look like a raving dumbass wouldn't it.
which is exactly what I have told you 5 times.
Literally too stupid to understand i'm not talking about that Still.
Yea if only there was part of that CNN article that says they were literally the debate audience and CNN polled them live on telvision in front of everyone, that would sure make you look like a raving dumbass wouldn't it.
Where does it say that? For example, this was the first debate, and it's citing a previous poll:
Before the debate, 52 percent of those interviewed said they planned to vote for Bush, 44 percent for Kerry and 2 percent for Ralph Nader.
By contrast, the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, taken September 24-26, had 53 percent of all registered voters choosing Bush, 42 percent preferring Kerry and 3 percent favoring Nader.
Like I said, I'd love to see the actual poll, so I can look at the methodology.
too stupid to understand i'm not talking about that Still.
You keep saying that, but I think you might be too stupid to even know what you're saying. Let's say you're right, let's say this was a poll of the physical debate audience. What is your point? What is it I've said that this conflicts with?
You are literally so stupid I have to spend hours for you to be able to understand basic conversations since you sperg out about unrelated topics literally every time you try and have a conversation.
You are boring and predictable and i'm not interested in conversing with you because you think this is a game you can "win" if I don't post everything I know about conducting a scientific poll, something that would literally not fit in a reddit post and you aren't worth wasting that much time over. It's literally years of study with such a multitude of things affecting it and you are a basic bitch who relies on pop sci polls in a election where people lied about voting for Trump.
You being unable to articulate your point is not my problem.
It's literally years of study with such a multitude of things affecting it and you are a basic bitch who relies on pop sci polls in a election where people lied about voting for Trump.
Few things.
A) The polls were within margin of error nationally. They were more accurate in 2016 than 2012. So that doesn't seem to offer much support for your claim that people lied about voting for Donald Trump.
B) Can you provide some data showing people lied about voting for Donald Trump?
Remember when I said i'm not interested in your autistic quagmire?
Where I literally predicted you doing this and that's why I'm not interested in talking to you since you are that boringly predictable?
The polls were within margin of error nationally.
You're dumbass thinks this is a good point, that's why I don't want to talk to you.
yet to proven
No, you are just so crippled emotionally it's impossible for you to ever admit you are wrong about anything. They literally were on TV showing the audience saying they polled them you complete dumbass I already told you this.
How many times do I have to say you're too stupid and boring to talk to until you understand?
Remember when I said i'm not interested in your autistic quagmire?
Sure, but that's just you trying to avoid losing an argument, thankfully I'm not interested in you personally and do this for the crowd, and I enjoy running circles around you.
Your dumbass thinks this is a good point, that's why I don't want to talk to you.
You claim polls are inaccurate because people lied about voting for Trump.
I point out the polls were as accurate as ever, and within margin of error.
So, my friend, if people lied about voting for Trump, and the polls are inaccurate, how were they as accurate as ever, and within the margin of error? If there was some Trump effect, and people lied, you'd expect the polling to be outside of historical norms, they weren't.
No, you are just so crippled emotionally it's impossible for you to ever admit you are wrong about anything. They literally were on TV showing the audience saying they polled them you complete dumbass I already told you this.
You said CNN said this in the article linked, I've asked you to copy-paste where they said this. Why haven't you? Can you provide the video showing them doing this?
How many times do I have to say you're too stupid and boring to talk to until you understand?
I mean, you can keep saying it, that won't make you any less wrong. So again, explain to me, let's say you're right and this was a physical audience poll, what does that have to do with anything I said? How does it conflict with anything I said?
NATIONAL POLLS you complete dumbass, those are different. How are you this fucking dumb.
My god you are literally the stupidest man alive i'm so tired of having to explain, and explain and explain.
I've asked you to copy-paste where they said this.
The part where it says Debate Audiance but sure i'll get right on pulling a video from 2004 out of my ass, I wouldn't mention that specific poll because I remember it instead of literally any other one noooo if it's not on the internet it must be a figment of imagination.
Literally stop filling my inbox with your garbage, I'm not interested in fulfilling your delusional fantasy about a crowd cheering your ignorant reddit posts on my god how can you you even type something like that without imploding out of shame.
NATIONAL POLLS you complete dumbass, those are different. How are you this fucking dumb. My god you are literally the stupidest man alive i'm so tired of having to explain, and explain and explain.
Most state polls were just as accurate, what exactly is your point? If people lied about voting for Trump, are you claiming it was only in very specific states? Why would Trump voters lie about voting for Trump in, for example, Ohio, but not every other state?
The part where it says Debate Audiance but sure i'll get right on pulling a video from 2004 out of my ass, I wouldn't mention that specific poll because I remember it instead of literally any other one noooo if it's not on the internet it must be a figment of imagination.
Audience means people that watched the debate. It doesn't necessarily mean a physical audience. And why would they include "a poll of 615 registered voters."
Literally stop filling my inbox with your garbage, I'm not interested in fulfilling your delusional fantasy about a crowd cheering your ignorant reddit posts on my god how can you you even type something like that without imploding out of shame.
This sounds an awful lot like a guy that can't defend his arguments, can't support his arguments, and knows he made an incoherent point with no relevance to what was being said.
I mean I know I won, that was obvious around the time you decided to randomly invoke an alleged physical audience poll as if that conflicted with or refuted anything I said.
The final nail went into the coffin around the time you claimed Trump voters lied about voting for Trump, and then couldn't explain why it didn't show up in polling.
It was really easy to win this argument because you don't think about anything you say and think pundit talking points are reality.
Alright, you clearly have some very fundamental misunderstandings as to what polling is.
Like, if we have 50 years of data showing how accurate polling is, we know the average margin of error, we don't need a "control group."
If the polls are off, on average, over 50 years, by 2 points in either direction when compared to the outcome of the election, we know exactly how accurate they are.
Stop repeating terms you don't know the meaning of. This is more hilarious than when climate deniers show up and start talking about how climate science isn't actually science.
A tip of the fedora to you, you're a genuine idiot.
Ok so no control group. How about peer review? And who is funding these pills anyway? Seems they might have a conflict of interest. Just sounds like bad science. Plus, Nate Silver was totally wrong.
Let me try to word this in a way you can comprehend.
Let's say we run a poll for 50 years. Let's say on average, over 50 years, that poll is off by an average of 2 points in either direction when compared to the final outcome of the election?
I hope to god this is satire. If we have a real world event to test our data with, why do we need peer review or a control group?
If I come up with a statistical model that says X will happen Y percent of the time, and then X happens Y percent of the time, why do I need a control group or peer review?
Yes, I follow you, but those methodologies would have to be evaluated by a board for peer review to be real science. Also, your claim of "50 years of accuracy" is pretty suspect. There are a lot more than 50 years.
Also, you never answered my question of how autistic you are.
You're such a dipshit to unironically stan Mommy
She was a bad candidate. Full stop. There were no "decisive" debates outside of the Twitterotizi takes.
I don't give a shit about Clinton. She was a bad candidate for the climate, but Trump was an even worse candidate.
And no, there were pretty decisive debates if you score them using the metrics we've always used to score debates.
Even if we were being generous to Trump, he bombed hard. You should go read the transcript of his Syria answer and come back here and tell me he didn't get his shit kicked in during those debates, thus the origin of the famous gif in which Trump is grinding his teeth and ripping up paper like a child:
Oh no, Daddy looked like a fucking retard? Guess little his base cared. Mommy trying to snare him with FACTS and LOGIC to appease the jazz hands crowd was exactly the wrong play. You can't debate a drooling moron. You need to pitch yourself. Mommy did not.
High engagement voters who have already likely decided between candidates, especially very polarizing candidates such as Mommy and Daddy, declare her the champion.
As we know, Super Bowls are won in September.
That's not data refuting the idea she won the debates though. Debate bumps don't last forever, and more damaging information was dropped a week before the election, which alone would also erode any debate bumps.
Your argument doesn't make much sense, doesn't seem well thought out.
What is the purpose of the electoral debates if not to persuade people to vote for you over your opponent? This sounds an awful lot like some COPE, friend.
The small or nonexistent movement in voters’ preferences is evident when comparing the polls before and after each debate or during the debate season as a whole. Political lore often glosses over or even ignores the polling data. Even those who do pay attention to polls often fail to separate real changes from random blips due to sampling error. A more careful study by political scientist James Stimson finds little evidence of game changers in the presidential campaigns between 1960 and 2000. Stimson writes, “There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” At best, debates provide a “nudge” in very close elections like 1960,1980, or 2000. A even more comprehensive study, by political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, which includes every publicly available poll from the presidential elections between 1952 and 2008, comes to a similar conclusion: excluding the 1976 election, which saw Carter’s lead drop steadily throughout the fall, “the best prediction from the debates is the initial verdict before the debates.” In other words, in the average election year, you can accurately predict where the race will stand after the debates by knowing the state of the race before the debates. Erikson and Wlezien conclude that evidence of debate effects is “fragile.”
You're entitled to think what you'd like, but in no universe, using anything even close to rational thought is is possible to think Trump won those debates.
He was completely incoherent, and all of the available data says he lost.
They claim that Hillary won. Their reasoning is super weak and boils down to
So, how is she a winner? Because Clinton went into this debate with massive momentum in the race — much of it caused by Trump's stumbles — and didn't make any sort of glaring error that would allow the Republican back into the contest.
Yet they stated right before
This debate was focused far more on Clinton than Trump — particularly in the final hour or so. Clinton's answer on her email server was meh and her Abraham Lincoln defense on her speeches to Wall Street was ridiculous.
Then, taking a look at the part where they discuss Trump losing...
Trump was much more solid and energetic in this debate than in the previous tilt. He was able to drive messages on Clinton's email, the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi. He dealt with his hot mic tape in (relatively) short order. And he ad-libbed a terrific line after Clinton cited Lincoln to explain her impolitic comments in front of a Wall Street audience.
"She lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late great, Abraham Lincoln. Honest Abe"
And they decide to get to why he "lost"
And yet, Trump was — stop me if you've heard this one — his own worst enemy. His stunt of holding a pre-debate news conference with a handful of women allegedly assaulted by Bill Clinton flowed seamlessly into Trump's insistence from the debate stage that Hillary Clinton would be in jail if he was elected president — and into his remarkable (and repeated) accusation that Clinton has "hate in her heart."
(Emphasis mine)
I'm not a fan of Trump or Clinton, and I was surprised that so many people thought Clinton was winning.
They claim that Hillary won. Their reasoning is super weak and boils down to
I stopped reading here. I don't give a shit what the washington post says. I am not saying Trump lost because the media says he lost (though media reading is relevant in some ways too how a debate is scored..)
I am saying he lost because the empirical data says he lost. The man is a profoundly ignorant moron that speaks at a 3rd grade level, if you unironically think he's ever won a debate in his life, even ignoring what the data says, I can't help you.
If she had just explicitly called him a retard, she would have had a 100% chance of winning. Same with Kerry in 2004. Democratic candidates (not counting Obama) somehow manage to be obviously East Coast elitists while at the same time not having the guts to name the retard.
He might've been better 10 years ago but he's unironically exhibiting a shitton of dementia symptoms now and would probably manage to lose to the charisma void that is Lizard Mommy if they had cause to debate nowadays.
He's the only one that has a chance, but that's because he's Bizarro Trump. A battle between Trump and Bizarro Trump will be just like a battle between Bizarro and Superman: full of retardation and poorly constructed sentences but in the end Superman wins. DDF 2020 represent.
This is the steroids equivalent of Bernie's "white people dont know what it's like to be poor" - racist and offensive on some abstract level, but not something that will actually hurt polling with minorities.
You're right but I mention minorities only because in the primary Biden is polling way higher than Warren with the racial minorities demo. And so the media has been on the hunt for one potential Biden "racial gaffe" after another to make the primary more exciting
well black that vote democrats are on median relatively moderate since like 95% of them vote democrats, especially boomers, and just want a safe choice that they know
this is what the media don't understand, Biden can be metood to oblivion and his boomer base doesn't give a fuck, he has had like a dozen "this will destroy Trump Biden for sure" moments and woke pundits are still wondering why his polling hasn't collapsed yet
Why would it? You'll hear about it for a few days before the media sweeps it under the rug. If it were Trump saying something this dumb Wolf Blitzer and Don Lemon would get into a fist fight to decide who got to talk about it first.
Taking an entire day off work because they closed the DMV in your area so you need to take a weekday off unpaid or use a PTO day just to go is hard for a lot of people.
They can downvote me all they want. It’s situational to say the least but not everyone has access to documents needed to get ID depending on their states rules.
Yeah. If you don’t already have an ID you’ll need birth certificate and ID, sometimes other documentation. If you don’t have an SS card you’ll need to already have an ID and a birth certificate. If you need a birth certificate your going to need an ID and SS card. It’s a documentation loop that not having one of them can prevent you from getting others without a lot of time to jump through the hoops.
As a Central American I’m simply never going to understand this argument. We have poverty levels hundreds of times worse than anything you have in America and we still need an ID to vote. If you are so
disenfranchised you can’t even get and ID, chances are you are not going to vote anyway.
I worked for the Elections and Boundaries Commission in my country. Where I'm from, you get registered to vote automatically when you get an ID card. Wanna register to vote? You get an ID card. Want to vote? Where the fuck is your ID card?
How Americans let the government allow people to vote without an ID baffles me.
It's possible but I don't think they use indelible ink either. America was actually used as a text book example of the problems of a rigid constitution in my school civics class.
That’s the goal of these laws to disenfranchise voters. If you have limited access to transportation and the closest place to get an ID is now an hour plus away you better hope you can get a day off. Also have supporting documentation readily available to prove your identity
a birth certificate (not a copy), and a nonlost SS card.
To be incredibly fair about the situation. It isn't that hard to make time to get a ID. 50% voter participation isn't driven by the DMV and having to register at some point in a month once every two years.
On February 25, 1962, George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, and ten of his “storm troopers” arrived at the Chicago International Amphitheater, where twelve thousand Black Muslims were gathering for a convention organized by the Nation of Islam (NOI). Placed in the front row, Rockwell and his fully-uniformed companions sat and listened as Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad addressed the crowd. Then, Rockwell himself was invited to the podium.
“You know that we call you niggers,” he said. “But wouldn’t you rather be confronted by honest white men who tell you to your face what the others all say behind you back?”
"I am not afraid to stand here and tell you I hate race-mixing and will fight it to the death," Rockwell continued. "But at the same time, I will do everything in my power to help the Honorable Elijah Muhammad carry out his inspired plan for land of your own in Africa. Elijah Muhammad is right. Separation or death!"
Despite receiving a mixture of applause and ridicule, Rockwell had the approval of Muhammad, whom he had just deemed “the Adolf Hitler of the black man.”
Two months later, Muhammad, writing in the NOI newspaper, admonished his flock for their frosty reception: "If they are speaking the truth for us, what do we care? We'll stand on our heads and applaud!"
229 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-08-09
I did a research paper this summer on this subreddit and there was a published study that found that 74% of attacks on Reddit came from 1% of source subreddits. I assume that subs like r/Drama are the 1%.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 OversocializationALT 2019-08-09
jesus christ and the boomer retards actually clapped
1 Mayos_side 2019-08-09
Well it's true.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
Because did you look at where he is speaking? The Asians and Latino coalition. He also threw in a “as smart as black kids.” Which is ironic because Asians are the smartest of all
1 Rivea_ 2019-08-09
Because this is unironically how the far left actually feels about black people, it's just taboo to admit it out loud. It's also why 1) this won't be more than a little bluster for Biden and 2) Every time Trump uses the words "Imigrants" and "Americans" the left thinks he's saying "browns" and "whites". It's literally projection.
1 taytaybraps 2019-08-09
>calling Biden "far left"
😂😂😂
1 Rivea_ 2019-08-09
Did I call Biden far left, or did I call the crowd applauding him far left? You illiterate mongoloid.
1 taytaybraps 2019-08-09
Ah, so you're calling Biden's supporters far left! That definitely makes you look like less of a politically illiterate burger brainlet.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2019-08-09
And everyone clapped.....awkwardly
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2019-08-09
Umm actually Joe was referring to the glaring socioeconomic disparity between whites and other races in the US duhhh enjoy your cofveve
1 IHeartCommyMommy 2019-08-09
Tbh, I'm kinda curious to see if this will be picked up on or just brushed aside. If it gets some turmoil it'll definitely be good for dramacoin
1 ClinicalGazesUrBulge 2019-08-09
If Hillary Clinton can pass out in front of 400 people and it doesn't even make the news they can make this go away.
1 zhcyiDnein 2019-08-09
The fuck? Did that actually happen? If so, it worked I guess.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
Nigga she went to the 9/11 memorial and passed the fuck out.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-08-09
we've all been there
1 ClinicalGazesUrBulge 2019-08-09
https://youtu.be/QOCPGMtbuiU
Watch her feet.
1 InTheCongoWithaBongo 2019-08-09
And no one ever explained what that metal thing clanging out of her pant leg was either.
1 ManBearFridge 2019-08-09
Clearly a cyborg
1 texanapocalypse33 2019-08-09
Mossad-made antennae that receives instructions from Israel
1 Brumaired 2019-08-09
Uh the DDF absolutely wouldn't shut up about it nor did anyone else. Her people pretty much picked her up and put her into the SUV as she was passing out. Your memory is just off.
1 Pinksister 2019-08-09
This is true. I'm a rightoid but, my friends, this news was everywhere. Remember A SIDE OF BEEF? I was making fun of her with my normie office jerb coworkers in Canada. The leftie news brought on a bunch of doctors who definitely weren't paid under the table to say that Hay Clay was perfectly healthy and just exhausted from the campaign.
1 AlecOzzyHillPitas 2019-08-09
And then a week after the election she died, proving rightoids everywhere correct about her debilitating illness / brain tumor / AIDS.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2019-08-09
Prism eye glasses from he surviving that plane crash on the iranian border.
1 itoucheditforacookie 2019-08-09
Trump really closed the umbrella on that one
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 Osterion 2019-08-09
what that was like front page news for a week
1 ClinicalGazesUrBulge 2019-08-09
On Reddit. The average person didn't hear about it.
1 Osterion 2019-08-09
Wtf, it was all over cnn and shit. They had all sorts of doctors pretend to know it wasn't a big deal.
1 ClinicalGazesUrBulge 2019-08-09
It really only blew up when it became apparent they couldn't hide it anymore. It took a few days for it to go all over the internet and become unignorable before they decided to talk about this.
1 Osterion 2019-08-09
That sounds wrong but I don't care enough to Google it and find out.
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
What fantasy world do you live in?
1 genuinegrill 2019-08-09
ddssw
1 ClinicalGazesUrBulge 2019-08-09
I remember there being an awkward period where it was only on fringe sites before it hit the mainstream, but it looks like I've misremembered.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Naw you could see the cope happening live in the /r/politics thread it went from she's so strong for going while she has a flu, it's superhot out there,I'd pass out too, what do you mean it's not hot there, sideofbeef.gif
You just misremembered like a 20min span as being longer
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
Imagine being such a boomer you watch cable news or read cnn 😂😂😂
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
Possibly my favourite part of that saga was when Dems started rolling out the "FDR was in a wheelchair and he was a great president" after months of saying HRC (Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key) was fine and it was all just an absurd conspiracy that anything was wrong with her.
1 Osterion 2019-08-09
Yeah, they prepared all sorts of cope if turned out she was really sick
1 Pinksister 2019-08-09
Remember the news pushing lull on the day after the election? They were so sure they'd win that there was no plan in place if they lost.
1 THOT-AUDITOR 2019-08-09
fortunately the more deranged part of her fanbase (plus the bernouts I guess) gave them plenty of material in the short term by rioting for the next week.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
It was an absurd conspiracy, she released medical records and we all knew what caused it.
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
IIRC. That was after denying it became an impossible position.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Her medical records have been available for years, along with her taxes for example.
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
>It was never denied, I'm not even sure where people are getting that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/06/the-questions-about-hillary-clintons-health-are-absurd/
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/colbert-hillary-clinton-no-penis
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/hillarys-health-the-birtherism-of-2016/496847/
Her immediate illness during the campaign was certainly covered up and brushed aside by elements of the media. Even after she collapsed, there was a good few days before her campaign decided this wasn't going away, and they released the pneumonia info.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Literally nothing you just linked is denying any health problems, but refuting right-wing conspiracies.
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
Of course they're going to ignore all the legitimate questions in favor of amplifying the 'crazy conspiracies from the deranged rethuglicans'.
Where was the explanation for her disappearing from the campaign trail for over a week? There wasn't one. All the reasonable concerns were brushed aside until that position was untenable.
That's the tactic they chose to run with, and it backfired bigly because then it made the pneumonia admission sound like it still wasn't the whole story.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
What lol? You seem to have a very warped understanding of reality.
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
I'm starting to doubt the credentials of your phd, professor shill.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
You're claiming Clinton denied she had health problems because she didn't reveal she was diagnosed with pneumonia the very hour she was told.
She revealed it a few hours after the 9/11 memorial. If she was denying the medical problem, why reveal it that soon?
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
It was clear she was acutely unwell before that. She had multiple noticeable absences from the campaign trail. And when she was around, she didn't look so good. A lot of the health theories were retarded, but they weren't based on nothing.
Because it was the least bad option at that point. They had to get ahead of the story. The optics of collapsing into the back of a car at the 9/11 ceremony were just too damaging.
It allowed them to move directly on to the "she's so badass for campaigning with pneumonia" spin.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
But we have medical records showing she was diagnosed the previous the Friday, so your argument doesn't hold water.
Or, you know, she's an old woman and likely thought she'd be fine, was medicated, and simply overestimated her ability to deal with the illness. When something happened in public, she revealed it within a few hours.
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
An infection can take weeks to develop into pneumonia. It's also very hard for an otherwise fit person to develop full blown pneumonia when it's 70 degrees out.
She was on video coughing up thick lumps of green phlegm before that diagnosis. Even if they didn't know what was wrong, they knew it was something. Everyone with eyes knew there was something.
Her campaign manager decided it was the right move. Prior to that, her campaign manager decided it wasn't.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I don't disagree that it could take weeks. But that's just a point in my favor, if Clinton didn't know about it, how can she be hiding it?
That's just factually incorrect. I cough up mucus often. That's a symptom of a bunch of different problems, from the common cold to things that are much worse.
Because there's no need to reveal something like that, if you believe it's under control.
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
We don't all have aids, though.
1 DepravedMutant 2019-08-09
It was literally denied that she had any health problems despite obvious signs of something being seriously off, the people making those allegations were called conspiracy theorists, and then, finally after collapsing like a sack of bricks on live tv after weeks of weird behavior, they said oh she just has a little pneumonia
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
It was never denied she had any health problems at all.
In fact, she revealed pneumonia that day I believe. A few hours after? Like what exactly is your claim here, that Clinton denied she had health problems because she didn't instantly, that hour, reveal she had pneumonia?
Furthermore, she was diagnosed with pneumonia the previous friday, she hadn't had it for weeks and I have no idea where you got that from.
1 DepravedMutant 2019-08-09
It was absolutely denied by people in the media and her campaign didn't admit she had pneumonia until she collapsed on national tv, and even that was damage control. She had been obviously unwell with SOMETHING for quite some time
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
She wasn't diagnosed with pneumonia until the previous friday, so your "quite some time" argument doesn't seem to hold much water.
And the first statement her campaign released after the collapse was revealing pneumonia, so your argument there doesn't hold much water.
1 DepravedMutant 2019-08-09
The pnuemonia was just her campaign's pr spin, she had been clearly sick for months, which is where all the speculation came from. Dude, the election's over, you don't have to live like this anymore.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Clearly sick, are you a doctor by chance?
1 DepravedMutant 2019-08-09
lmao you don't need to be a doctor to tell that bitch was sick
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
So that's a no, you aren't a doctor. Glad we could clear that up.
1 hi_0 2019-08-09
https://youtu.be/B46oJlwqHWY
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Yeah, that's called mucus friend, I spit that shit up weekly, I don't have any medical problems.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-08-09
thanks, now I'm rock hard
1 nowthatswhat 2019-08-09
Imagine being this mad about nonsense.
1 NWcoffeeaddict 2019-08-09
The sheer number of pictures of her ass with a poo stain on it during the election really...idk...blew me away I guess. Some were photo shopped...but others...idk man, looked like poo on her ass.
The thought that someone was pushing these to paint her health as non-presidential is actually kind of funny now in hindsight.
1 Momruepari 2019-08-09
tfw no poo in ass president
1 TaysSecondGussy 2019-08-09
Why even vote?
1 TheColdTurtle 2019-08-09
Shart in mart
1 hi_0 2019-08-09
https://youtu.be/B46oJlwqHWY
1 ReNitty 2019-08-09
That was the second time a vast right wing conspiracy against Hillary turned out to be true
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
The first one was the lizard thing, right?
1 ReNitty 2019-08-09
The Clinton blowjob thing was number one. The lizard thing was the third one
1 BurgerLaowai 2019-08-09
Thrown into a van like a side of beef.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-08-09
like loading sacks of coal onto a railcar
heav -ho-
1 BurgerLaowai 2019-08-09
tink...clink..tinkaclinkclink
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-08-09
"here you are mrs clinton, take my hand and watch your step :)"
1 i_Chapo-d_my_pants 2019-08-09
if it goes mute it'll be brought back from the dead by GOP news after the primaries whether he's the candidate or not; soundbite is too juicy to go silent forever
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 diggity_md 2019-08-09
Can we please get Sundown Daddy vs. Creepy Daddy? I want this presidential election to be a race to the absolute fucking rock bottom
1 OversocializationALT 2019-08-09
I really don’t see Biden beating Trump
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Literally no one thinks he's a better debater than Clinton right?
Like the debate would literally just be them going No U are responsible 4 things people don't like
1 Pinksister 2019-08-09
It's what the people want. Merit-based voting license democracy when? We unironically need to oppress the dumbest 30%-or-so of our species if we want to survive.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Swing Voters are a appealed to demographic and they are literally too dumb to make up their minds/don't pay attention literally at all to politics until the last moment.
They decide who is president and my god that's the most american thing I can think of i'm so proud.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2019-08-09
Swing voters are just radical centrists who dont know it yet.
1 nowthatswhat 2019-08-09
Political power should be based on smugness TBH
1 jubbergun 2019-08-09
That was originally how the American system worked. You had to be a male landowner in order to vote. Then we eventually let all the men vote so they'd have a say in whether we went to war or not. About twenty years after that we fucked up royally and let the foids have a vote, and it's all been downhill ever since. We eventually countered the Basic Becky vote by making sure the blacks could vote, but by then the damage was done and it was too late.
1 sub2tine 2019-08-09
don’t basic betties and darkies (when there’s not that 75% overlap 😏) tend to vote demoncrat in similar percentages? i’d be really surprised if the 2 least capable demographics in america voted against each other
1 lolnope06 2019-08-09
I agree, but people are unwilling to recognize that some people just shouldn’t be allowed to participate in society, mayos mostly.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Trump lost all 3 debates by some of the largest margins since we've been recording.
Debates don't matter that much anymore outside of a primary. If they did, Trump would have lost sometime around the time he gave some huge incoherent speech about Syria that didn't make any sense, or attacked poor Americans for not paying taxes while at the same time bragging about not paying taxes as a billionaire.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
LOL the fact you actually believe this AND have the gall to respond to any of my posts with your idiotic dribble about unscientific polls.
I'm so surprised you don't remember the 2004 Presidential debate where they only polled people who actually watched the debates instead of everyone
53vs37
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
How are they unscientific? Explain to me the how they're wrong, in detail please.
That isn't how debate polling works. You look at national poll bumps after debates. It's pretty basic, the same way you look for convention bumps for example.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-won-the-debate-which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/
Post debate polls are not the only things that matter.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
No i'm not interested in your autistic quagmire, I've already told you last time you bored me and refused to stop filling my inbox with boring posts I could get from /r/poltiics anytime I want, if you can't figure out the difference between actual scientific polls and popsci ones that's on you.
Again I'm my own individual stop being autistic
Lmao
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
So for the people watching in. I'll translate this for you: "I have no ability to explain how polling is usncientific because I have no understanding of polling myself and simply repeat things I've heard other people with no understanding of polling day."
You understand we have around 50 years of data showing the accuracy of polls, yes?
Are you denying that years of data exists showing the accuracy of polling?
It doesn't matter what poll you're talking about. The metric you think is used to score debates is nott the actual metric used to score debates. You very clearly do not know what you are talking about.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Again, you are literally too dumb to understand my posts and it makes it boring to interact with you because you just are so boring.
Here's your post again so you can maybe figure out and admit you were wrong for once but I doubt it
You're literally too stupid to figure out I'm talking about why would I be interested in talking to you? I'm not going to take the time to post everything I know about how to conduct actual science polls you should be smart enough to figure out why.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
So again, we see no detailed explanation for how polls are wrong or unscientific.
Yeah, that's called a post debate poll. You poll people that, you know, actually watched the debate. How could you possibly get a valid answer as to who won a debate if you asked people that didn't watch the debate? A psot debate poll is not the only metric used to score a debate, you've been told this 4 times now and seemingly can't comprehend what is being said to you.
You're even more incoherent than usual today sir. Your argument makes no sense, you seem to be angry that a post--debate poll (one of like 5 metrics used to score a debate win) only polled people that... watched the debate? How could someone that didn't watch the debate have a valid opinion on who won said debate?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
It's literally people who watched the debate as in THEY WERE THE AUDIENCE at the debate
LITERALLY TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND BASIC CONVERSATION stop posting
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I don't think that's the case, I think you're reading it incorrectly, which makes sense because it's worded poorly.
I believe it's a poll of 615 registered voters, not people that were physically in the audience of the debate.
You'll have to link me the actual poll so I can read the methodology too be sure. And either way, this wouldn't refute my argument. Even if what you said was true, it doesn't refute anything I said. You seem to think an example of an audience being interviewed means debates are scored that way, they aren't.
The poll you cited says as much:
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Wow i'm so surprised you doubled down who could have seen this totally unforeseen post happening it's not boring and predictable at all.
Yea if only there was part of that CNN article that says they were literally the debate audience and CNN polled them live on telvision in front of everyone, that would sure make you look like a raving dumbass wouldn't it.
Literally too stupid to understand i'm not talking about that Still.
Stop
Posting
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Where does it say that? For example, this was the first debate, and it's citing a previous poll:
Like I said, I'd love to see the actual poll, so I can look at the methodology.
You keep saying that, but I think you might be too stupid to even know what you're saying. Let's say you're right, let's say this was a poll of the physical debate audience. What is your point? What is it I've said that this conflicts with?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
You are literally so stupid I have to spend hours for you to be able to understand basic conversations since you sperg out about unrelated topics literally every time you try and have a conversation.
You are boring and predictable and i'm not interested in conversing with you because you think this is a game you can "win" if I don't post everything I know about conducting a scientific poll, something that would literally not fit in a reddit post and you aren't worth wasting that much time over. It's literally years of study with such a multitude of things affecting it and you are a basic bitch who relies on pop sci polls in a election where people lied about voting for Trump.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
You being unable to articulate your point is not my problem.
Few things.
A) The polls were within margin of error nationally. They were more accurate in 2016 than 2012. So that doesn't seem to offer much support for your claim that people lied about voting for Donald Trump.
B) Can you provide some data showing people lied about voting for Donald Trump?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Remember when I said i'm not interested in your autistic quagmire?
Where I literally predicted you doing this and that's why I'm not interested in talking to you since you are that boringly predictable?
You're dumbass thinks this is a good point, that's why I don't want to talk to you.
No, you are just so crippled emotionally it's impossible for you to ever admit you are wrong about anything. They literally were on TV showing the audience saying they polled them you complete dumbass I already told you this.
How many times do I have to say you're too stupid and boring to talk to until you understand?
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Sure, but that's just you trying to avoid losing an argument, thankfully I'm not interested in you personally and do this for the crowd, and I enjoy running circles around you.
You claim polls are inaccurate because people lied about voting for Trump.
I point out the polls were as accurate as ever, and within margin of error.
So, my friend, if people lied about voting for Trump, and the polls are inaccurate, how were they as accurate as ever, and within the margin of error? If there was some Trump effect, and people lied, you'd expect the polling to be outside of historical norms, they weren't.
You said CNN said this in the article linked, I've asked you to copy-paste where they said this. Why haven't you? Can you provide the video showing them doing this?
I mean, you can keep saying it, that won't make you any less wrong. So again, explain to me, let's say you're right and this was a physical audience poll, what does that have to do with anything I said? How does it conflict with anything I said?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
NATIONAL POLLS you complete dumbass, those are different. How are you this fucking dumb. My god you are literally the stupidest man alive i'm so tired of having to explain, and explain and explain.
The part where it says Debate Audiance but sure i'll get right on pulling a video from 2004 out of my ass, I wouldn't mention that specific poll because I remember it instead of literally any other one noooo if it's not on the internet it must be a figment of imagination.
Literally stop filling my inbox with your garbage, I'm not interested in fulfilling your delusional fantasy about a crowd cheering your ignorant reddit posts on my god how can you you even type something like that without imploding out of shame.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Most state polls were just as accurate, what exactly is your point? If people lied about voting for Trump, are you claiming it was only in very specific states? Why would Trump voters lie about voting for Trump in, for example, Ohio, but not every other state?
Audience means people that watched the debate. It doesn't necessarily mean a physical audience. And why would they include "a poll of 615 registered voters."
This sounds an awful lot like a guy that can't defend his arguments, can't support his arguments, and knows he made an incoherent point with no relevance to what was being said.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Yes your right you won this argument now go away thanks. I'm so fucking tired of you.
I'm not going to explain more shit to your dumbass, I've already told you to stop arguing about shit I never said.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I mean I know I won, that was obvious around the time you decided to randomly invoke an alleged physical audience poll as if that conflicted with or refuted anything I said.
The final nail went into the coffin around the time you claimed Trump voters lied about voting for Trump, and then couldn't explain why it didn't show up in polling.
It was really easy to win this argument because you don't think about anything you say and think pundit talking points are reality.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Yes great wonderful you sure showed me.
1 Plzbpatienthavetism 2019-08-09
>longposting
>seriousposting
>S E E T H I N G
Yeah, I'm thinking he's back
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
They weren't peer reviewed.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Is this a joke?
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
The polls, or my comment?
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
We have like 50 years of data showing the accuracy of national polls.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
Do you have a control group for that 50 years?
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Alright, you clearly have some very fundamental misunderstandings as to what polling is.
Like, if we have 50 years of data showing how accurate polling is, we know the average margin of error, we don't need a "control group."
If the polls are off, on average, over 50 years, by 2 points in either direction when compared to the outcome of the election, we know exactly how accurate they are.
Stop repeating terms you don't know the meaning of. This is more hilarious than when climate deniers show up and start talking about how climate science isn't actually science.
A tip of the fedora to you, you're a genuine idiot.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
Ok so no control group. How about peer review? And who is funding these pills anyway? Seems they might have a conflict of interest. Just sounds like bad science. Plus, Nate Silver was totally wrong.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Let me try to word this in a way you can comprehend.
Let's say we run a poll for 50 years. Let's say on average, over 50 years, that poll is off by an average of 2 points in either direction when compared to the final outcome of the election?
What does that mean?
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
Let's say we run a poll, with no control group, no peer review, and it's sponsored by Bitcoin. What do you think now?
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I hope to god this is satire. If we have a real world event to test our data with, why do we need peer review or a control group?
If I come up with a statistical model that says X will happen Y percent of the time, and then X happens Y percent of the time, why do I need a control group or peer review?
Are you seriously not following this?
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
Yes, I follow you, but those methodologies would have to be evaluated by a board for peer review to be real science. Also, your claim of "50 years of accuracy" is pretty suspect. There are a lot more than 50 years.
Also, you never answered my question of how autistic you are.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
The proof of accuracy is how they compared with the election outcomes...
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
Post facto rationalization. Ergo, autismo.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I'm going to assume this is a low tier troll, there's no way you're this dumb.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-09
I love you Pizza 😍
1 SJCards 2019-08-09
You're such a dipshit to unironically stan Mommy She was a bad candidate. Full stop. There were no "decisive" debates outside of the Twitterotizi takes.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I don't give a shit about Clinton. She was a bad candidate for the climate, but Trump was an even worse candidate.
And no, there were pretty decisive debates if you score them using the metrics we've always used to score debates.
Even if we were being generous to Trump, he bombed hard. You should go read the transcript of his Syria answer and come back here and tell me he didn't get his shit kicked in during those debates, thus the origin of the famous gif in which Trump is grinding his teeth and ripping up paper like a child:
He knows he got destroyed.
1 SJCards 2019-08-09
Oh no, Daddy looked like a fucking retard? Guess little his base cared. Mommy trying to snare him with FACTS and LOGIC to appease the jazz hands crowd was exactly the wrong play. You can't debate a drooling moron. You need to pitch yourself. Mommy did not.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Yet she won the debates by very large margins according to the available data.
1 SJCards 2019-08-09
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
Do you have any data that refutes the idea she won the debates or?
1 SJCards 2019-08-09
Yeah. You can view some details here.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
That's not data refuting the idea she won the debates though. Debate bumps don't last forever, and more damaging information was dropped a week before the election, which alone would also erode any debate bumps.
Your argument doesn't make much sense, doesn't seem well thought out.
1 SJCards 2019-08-09
What is the purpose of the electoral debates if not to persuade people to vote for you over your opponent? This sounds an awful lot like some COPE, friend.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I mean, that's the point of debates, but they aren't actually that relevant these days.
If you're interested in learning about this, here's a fantastic run down of the scientific evidence:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septoct-2012/do-presidential-debates-really-matter/
1 shitpersonality 2019-08-09
I watched them and thought Trump came out ahead in every one. It was confusing to see the media claim Hillary won after each debate.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
You're entitled to think what you'd like, but in no universe, using anything even close to rational thought is is possible to think Trump won those debates.
He was completely incoherent, and all of the available data says he lost.
1 shitpersonality 2019-08-09
I just want to point out an example from WAPO on the 2nd 2016 presidential debate.
They claim that Hillary won. Their reasoning is super weak and boils down to
Yet they stated right before
Then, taking a look at the part where they discuss Trump losing...
And they decide to get to why he "lost"
(Emphasis mine)
I'm not a fan of Trump or Clinton, and I was surprised that so many people thought Clinton was winning.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I stopped reading here. I don't give a shit what the washington post says. I am not saying Trump lost because the media says he lost (though media reading is relevant in some ways too how a debate is scored..)
I am saying he lost because the empirical data says he lost. The man is a profoundly ignorant moron that speaks at a 3rd grade level, if you unironically think he's ever won a debate in his life, even ignoring what the data says, I can't help you.
1 shitpersonality 2019-08-09
If you want to claim Trump didn't lose, but not bring any specificity to the table as to why, that's okay.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-09
I'm citing tthe empirical data, betting markets, post debate polling, national polling bumps.
You know, the metric you use to score national debates.
1 Funkyduffy 2019-08-09
is this a saying?
1 SJCards 2019-08-09
No but it felt right to my drunk ass.
1 Redactor0 2019-08-09
If she had just explicitly called him a retard, she would have had a 100% chance of winning. Same with Kerry in 2004. Democratic candidates (not counting Obama) somehow manage to be obviously East Coast elitists while at the same time not having the guts to name the retard.
1 Mayos_side 2019-08-09
I can actually hear her voice saying "don't take this retarded man seriously."
1 lolnope06 2019-08-09
That little saying would have been good for drama coin.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-08-09
I don’t think the 2016 election was allowed to even get more based.
1 SymboIicCyanide 2019-08-09
Wow hasn't he got musch fatter and older since that video?
1 TotesMessenger 2019-08-09
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 THOT-AUDITOR 2019-08-09
He might've been better 10 years ago but he's unironically exhibiting a shitton of dementia symptoms now and would probably manage to lose to the charisma void that is Lizard Mommy if they had cause to debate nowadays.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-08-09
Cope
1 jubbergun 2019-08-09
He's the only one that has a chance, but that's because he's Bizarro Trump. A battle between Trump and Bizarro Trump will be just like a battle between Bizarro and Superman: full of retardation and poorly constructed sentences but in the end Superman wins. DDF 2020 represent.
1 The_Golden_Ass 2019-08-09
Which is which?
1 Leithz7 2019-08-09
The old crusty white one
1 Adramolino 2019-08-09
Who is sundown daddy?
1 Crabb 2019-08-09
Well, it’s actually Joe Biden.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
Asian and Latino coalition? Lol okay sure.
1 jubbergun 2019-08-09
That seemed odd to me, too, until I realized they were just ganging up on the blacks, then it made perfect sense.
1 duckraul2 2019-08-09
Title funnier if your imagine it in bitconnect man accent
1 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2019-08-09
I was thinking of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wivOEXlL9s
1 Leithz7 2019-08-09
PepeLaugh
1 googleussliberty 2019-08-09
You know what they say. You're either a white supremacist or a white supremacist with a guilty conscience
1 genuinegrill 2019-08-09
ajaja
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
Cope
1 genuinegrill 2019-08-09
fddee
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
No, you write a five paragraph essay about everything you hate about this sub. Then you say you are leaving by come back in a couple of weeks.
1 Dildokin 2019-08-09
Make sure to post a self aggrandizing post whenever you leave and come back too
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2019-08-09
1 Burnnoticelover 2019-08-09
My gift to you guys
1 CulturalYogurt 2019-08-09
This is the steroids equivalent of Bernie's "white people dont know what it's like to be poor" - racist and offensive on some abstract level, but not something that will actually hurt polling with minorities.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2019-08-09
or whites for that matter (woke twitter doesn't count)
1 CulturalYogurt 2019-08-09
You're right but I mention minorities only because in the primary Biden is polling way higher than Warren with the racial minorities demo. And so the media has been on the hunt for one potential Biden "racial gaffe" after another to make the primary more exciting
1 Tytos_Lannister 2019-08-09
well black that vote democrats are on median relatively moderate since like 95% of them vote democrats, especially boomers, and just want a safe choice that they know
this is what the media don't understand, Biden can be metood to oblivion and his boomer base doesn't give a fuck, he has had like a dozen "this will destroy
TrumpBiden for sure" moments and woke pundits are still wondering why his polling hasn't collapsed yet1 DepravedMutant 2019-08-09
Blacks are just gonna vote the gimme dat ticket anyway (no racism)
1 jubbergun 2019-08-09
Why would it? You'll hear about it for a few days before the media sweeps it under the rug. If it were Trump saying something this dumb Wolf Blitzer and Don Lemon would get into a fist fight to decide who got to talk about it first.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-08-09
I would pay good money to see that fight
1 jubbergun 2019-08-09
Eh...it would probably be kinda sad to watch.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-08-09
when did he say this BRO
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 Pepperglue 2019-08-09
Here you go.
1 Metatron58 2019-08-09
proof this is the best timeline
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
Big if tru
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-08-09
You mean to tell me the party that thinks basketball Americans can't get an id might be somewhat racist
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
🎣🎣🎣
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-08-09
but adulting is HARD!
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
Taking an entire day off work because they closed the DMV in your area so you need to take a weekday off unpaid or use a PTO day just to go is hard for a lot of people.
31 in alabama
87 in Texas
10 in Wisconsin
The list goes on. Obviously a coincidence this happens within a year over voter ID in multiple states and only in areas that don’t tend to vote R.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-08-09
It’s so HARD!
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
I always thought you were smarter than boyoyo apparently I was wrong. Continue your 😴 baiting.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-08-09
I’m pretty retarded, but I somehow manage to make it to the DMV to keep my license up to date and my vehicle registered.
There’s even a portion there that lets you register to vote. Fucking crazy
1 itoucheditforacookie 2019-08-09
Tru tho
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
They can downvote me all they want. It’s situational to say the least but not everyone has access to documents needed to get ID depending on their states rules.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-08-09
I don’t really want to get into serious posting too much but what documents? Birth certificate? SS card? Drivers’ license?
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
Yeah. If you don’t already have an ID you’ll need birth certificate and ID, sometimes other documentation. If you don’t have an SS card you’ll need to already have an ID and a birth certificate. If you need a birth certificate your going to need an ID and SS card. It’s a documentation loop that not having one of them can prevent you from getting others without a lot of time to jump through the hoops.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-08-09
Fair, but those people can’t buy alcohol or get a job, though.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-08-09
to be fair that ain't sayin' much
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 reptilia987 2019-08-09
Seriousposting 🤢
1 _SweetnessFollows 2019-08-09
As a Central American I’m simply never going to understand this argument. We have poverty levels hundreds of times worse than anything you have in America and we still need an ID to vote. If you are so disenfranchised you can’t even get and ID, chances are you are not going to vote anyway.
1 BlackMansKryptonite 2019-08-09
I worked for the Elections and Boundaries Commission in my country. Where I'm from, you get registered to vote automatically when you get an ID card. Wanna register to vote? You get an ID card. Want to vote? Where the fuck is your ID card?
How Americans let the government allow people to vote without an ID baffles me.
1 Sasanka_Of_Gauda 2019-08-09
It's possible but I don't think they use indelible ink either. America was actually used as a text book example of the problems of a rigid constitution in my school civics class.
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
That’s the goal of these laws to disenfranchise voters. If you have limited access to transportation and the closest place to get an ID is now an hour plus away you better hope you can get a day off. Also have supporting documentation readily available to prove your identity a birth certificate (not a copy), and a nonlost SS card.
1 LostMaterial0 2019-08-09
You are fucking. Retarded. Retard. Idiot. Mongoloid. Moron. Invalid.
1 Evil_Patriarch 2019-08-09
Wow, 3 opinion articles from leftist websites! Some impressive sources you've got there friend!
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 genuinegrill 2019-08-09
gdfgfdgdfgdf
1 Iowa_Hawkeye 2019-08-09
Employers need to see proof of identity before hiring someone. They already have an ID.
Try again.
1 genuinegrill 2019-08-09
jaiaiso
1 Iowa_Hawkeye 2019-08-09
Fill me in.
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
Not everyone runs background checks on their employees outside of corporate businesses.
1 Iowa_Hawkeye 2019-08-09
I-9 is required by law.
1 RobKaBobby 2019-08-09
Toughest day of my life, I had a day off and decided fuck it I've got time...
1 Lvl100SkrubRekker 2019-08-09
To be incredibly fair about the situation. It isn't that hard to make time to get a ID. 50% voter participation isn't driven by the DMV and having to register at some point in a month once every two years.
1 Stenwalden 2019-08-09
Well you either take the day off every 4 years to vote or the racist fascist bigots win.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-08-09
Dude bussy lmao
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-08-09
The soft bigotry of low expectations strikes again.
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2019-08-09
Poor old guy.
1 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2019-08-09
Huh. That’s a pretty bad fuck up.
1 DasRoteOrgan 2019-08-09
Guy who is famous for not knowing what is appropriate said something that is not appropriate.
I think he is unironically worse than Trump. Trump at least knows what is offensive, and says it anyways. Uncle Biden however is just a senile boomer.
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 Leithz7 2019-08-09
This is why you don't elect senile fucking centenarians
1 jubbergun 2019-08-09
It's good for dramacoin.
1 [deleted] 2019-08-09
[removed]
1 princess_y_fronts 2019-08-09
D-boomer has a heated gamer moment before ALPHA ORANGE. rightwing-burgers, are you even applying yourself ?
1 improper33 2019-08-09
ok this is based alexa play alabama n word
1 MG87 2019-08-09
Creepy Dementia Daddy vs Creepy Dementia Daddy would be
1 UnregulatedPope 2019-08-09
On February 25, 1962, George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, and ten of his “storm troopers” arrived at the Chicago International Amphitheater, where twelve thousand Black Muslims were gathering for a convention organized by the Nation of Islam (NOI). Placed in the front row, Rockwell and his fully-uniformed companions sat and listened as Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad addressed the crowd. Then, Rockwell himself was invited to the podium.
“You know that we call you niggers,” he said. “But wouldn’t you rather be confronted by honest white men who tell you to your face what the others all say behind you back?”
"I am not afraid to stand here and tell you I hate race-mixing and will fight it to the death," Rockwell continued. "But at the same time, I will do everything in my power to help the Honorable Elijah Muhammad carry out his inspired plan for land of your own in Africa. Elijah Muhammad is right. Separation or death!"
Despite receiving a mixture of applause and ridicule, Rockwell had the approval of Muhammad, whom he had just deemed “the Adolf Hitler of the black man.”
Two months later, Muhammad, writing in the NOI newspaper, admonished his flock for their frosty reception: "If they are speaking the truth for us, what do we care? We'll stand on our heads and applaud!"
1 LostMaterial0 2019-08-09
Longpost bot where art thou? 😴😴😴
1 errderper 2019-08-09
jesus christ he's sundowning harder then king boomer