Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[AnOminous]

Bernie Bros are as delusional when it comes to Hillary as the average Democrat is about Trump right now. I gotta address this because 'If only Bernie-san had saved us from Hillary' comes up every 10 fucking pages or so.

All of that has merit, but still, eat a dick, fag.

I would have rather lost with integrity with Bernie than lost with a vile despicable cunt who was rightly despised by most Americans. At least, that would have set up 2020 with an actual contrast between the parties, rather than what we have, which is one corrupt criminal beating another corrupt criminal.

 

[His Dewliness]

FiveThirtyEight was doing the same shady stuff the others were. ... To any one with even a minimal undergrad analysis skills it clearly showed Trump was winning and Clinton had lost 20%+ of the Dem base in the area (which is what happened in reality). But NOPE top line says Clinton +4, gotta pimp the narrative.

State-level polling was absolutely garbage and often incredibly wrong, Silver and the others at 538 should have noticed that the polls were a bit wobbly and looked a little further but they didn't because hey, as long as the overall prediction that Clinton wins is right who gives a fuck if you call Florida wrong or get a few % points out in a couple of less important states.

 

[Keystone]

Don Jr. inherited his dad's trolling abilities:

https://twitter.com/polNewsForever/status/884809284000903168 (http://archive.is/5gEsU)

What a shame for that journo

 

[El Garbage]

So now that Trump Jr leaked some ree-mail about Russians, there will be a Great Impeachment and the Orange Hitler will be deposed, right? Right???

This shit is hard to follow.

 

[Unpleasant]

State-level polling was absolutely garbage and often incredibly wrong, Silver and the others at 538 should have noticed that the polls were a bit wobbly and looked a little further but they didn't because hey, as long as the overall prediction that Clinton wins is right who gives a fuck if you call Florida wrong or get a few % points out in a couple of less important states.

538 did give more credence to Trump than almost all other major sources, but they still seemed to proclaim their near certainty of a Clinton victory with a tiny subtext of a possible Trump win. When there are only two possible results, and you put it that way, you're still wrong- you just briefly entertained an idea contrary to what you thought would happen because it was a possibility.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

I wish I could find the Nate Silver article he wrote shortly before that. It was titled like "six possible election outcomes" and five detailed Clinton victories, giving a good amount of time to discuss the possibility that she would win by an overwhelming landslide, with one scenario that used a tone to the effect of, "if all polls and data scientists are wrong Trump might win!", but I have had a very hard time finding the article- something so embarrassing has been memory holed or possibly title-edited to prevent easy searching.

Don't take it from 538- they gave Trump more of a chance in the general than others (now, they repeatedly talked him down in the primary and very early general season just as much as everyone else, and did very poorly with primary predictions) but if you have a coin that flips heads 95% of the time, and you admit it could conceivably come up tails and bet on heads and lose, you're not a winner. You're not even less of a loser, you're still wrong.

 

[AngeloTheWizard]

Don Jr. inherited his dad's trolling abilities:

https://twitter.com/polNewsForever/status/884809284000903168 (http://archive.is/5gEsU)

What a shame for that journo

My favorite reply to that is "I spent years working on a way to eat soup without burning your hands, and he just pulls out a spoon! A goddamn spoon!"

 

[Ruin]

538 did give more credence to Trump than almost all other major sources, but they still seemed to proclaim their near certainty of a Clinton victory with a tiny subtext of a possible Trump win. When there are only two possible results, and you put it that way, you're still wrong- you just briefly entertained an idea contrary to what you thought would happen because it was a possibility.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

I wish I could find the Nate Silver article he wrote shortly before that. It was titled like "six possible election outcomes" and five detailed Clinton victories, giving a good amount of time to discuss the possibility that she would win by an overwhelming landslide, with one scenario that used a tone to the effect of, "if all polls and data scientists are wrong Trump might win!", but I have had a very hard time finding the article- something so embarrassing has been memory holed or possibly title-edited to prevent easy searching.

Don't take it from 538- they gave Trump more of a chance in the general than others (now, they repeatedly talked him down in the primary and very early general season just as much as everyone else, and did very poorly with primary predictions) but if you have a coin that flips heads 95% of the time, and you admit it could conceivably come up tails and bet on heads and lose, you're not a winner. You're not even less of a loser, you're still wrong.

Silver is shit. His polling is so bad he's twice had to write blog entries formally apologizing for how shit it is.

 

[Syaoran Li]

All of that has merit, but still, eat a dick, fag.

I would have rather lost with integrity with Bernie than lost with a vile despicable cunt who was rightly despised by most Americans. At least, that would have set up 2020 with an actual contrast between the parties, rather than what we have, which is one corrupt criminal beating another corrupt criminal.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

 

[RodgerDodger]

State-level polling was absolutely garbage and often incredibly wrong, Silver and the others at 538 should have noticed that the polls were a bit wobbly and looked a little further but they didn't because hey, as long as the overall prediction that Clinton wins is right who gives a fuck if you call Florida wrong or get a few % points out in a couple of less important states.

That's the thing. The State level polling was actually great, if you knew what you were looking at and looked below the topline. That poll that I mentioned is the perfect example. It's a 50/50 population. But they are sampling it 65/35 or worse. And with that oversample Clinton was only seeing a 4 point boost. What this tells anyone capable of high school math is that Trump was in fact winning by 5-7 points, and Clinton was losing her core base. Even with the oversample you can see the truth that did in fact play out on election day. This isn't wobbly polling. It was deliberate fraud and incompetence. 538 is perhaps the worst, because you know they had to see the truth, and so were hedging their bets just enough to save face, but not so much that they risked backlash from the press pimps. After all Podesta had given orders!

Some polling did actually get 2016 correct. The big difference. The cheat that so many relied on is the calculation for "Likely Voter". The most basic formula or question is "Did you vote in the last 2 Presidential Elections?" Similarly they balance voter turnout to look like an average of the last 2 Presidential elections. But what nobody admitted, although everybody knew, was that 2008 was the actual black swan event with abnormally skewed turnouts. The pollsters that got things right tossed out 2008 from their calculations and used 2004 and 2012 or averaged 2000, 2004 and 2012. They also used the same tricks against Sanders. The pollsters "assumption" was that turnout would be similar to 2008 and 2012, where a minority population would vote in near 100% as opposed to its historical 30-40% turnout rate, and that those votes were likely Hillary's automatically. This is why Sanders kept overperforming the polls.

 

[Internet War Criminal]

Are we really talking about the integrity of Bernie "I own three houses, one 45 minutes away from the other" Sanders? The same Bernie "I'll drop out of the race if the DNC provides me with a private jet" Sanders that ran during the election? That one? Bernie "I suddenly found $600,000 cash three weeks after dropping out to buy said third house" Sanders?


If Bernie had any actual integrity he would have told the DNC to fuck off and refused to back Clinton instead of getting a massive payout and shilling for her. Loser, sellout, just as crooked as all the others.

Honestly it's kind of hilarious that his wife did the same thing with the college she was managing, she cheated on real estate deals to get what she wanted, she fucked her own job up to the point where the college was fuck and they had to give her a six figure payout to go away and stay quiet

 

[Adamska]

Oh, so it's like how Yeb abused his political influence to keep textbook prices high since he was a member of Pearson's board.

Speaking of bad ideas, don't forget how both of 'em spent their honeymoon in the glorious Soviet Union as well. In spite of this though; I still would've picked him given that his skeletons in the closet were at least not covered in blood and the size of a storage unit complex.

 

[His Dewliness]

That's the thing. The State level polling was actually great, if you knew what you were looking at and looked below the topline. That poll that I mentioned is the perfect example. It's a 50/50 population. But they are sampling it 65/35 or worse. And with that oversample Clinton was only seeing a 4 point boost. What this tells anyone capable of high school math is that Trump was in fact winning by 5-7 points, and Clinton was losing her core base. Even with the oversample you can see the truth that did in fact play out on election day. This isn't wobbly polling. It was deliberate fraud and incompetence. 538 is perhaps the worst, because you know they had to see the truth, and so were hedging their bets just enough to save face, but not so much that they risked backlash from the press pimps. After all Podesta had given orders!

I wasn't aware of that, I'd assumed that the state level stuff was trash based on their really shitty headline summaries.
That's a genuinely interesting post, especially about the data from 2008 being anomalous which is something I wouldn't immediately think of as a way of fucking up their "likely voter" data.

If Bernie had any actual integrity he would have told the DNC to fuck off and refused to back Clinton instead of getting a massive payout and shilling for her. Loser, sellout, just as crooked as all the others.

The way he just buckled after he lost was fucking pathetic, he lost a lot of respect from his audience when he so quickly flipped and openly (somewhat enthusiastically?) went for Clinton. If he'd been honest and said "I don't like her but I'm going to vote for her as the least bad choice and I think you should too", he'd have managed to hold onto a key audience and keep the spirit of his campaign alive somewhat, he'd get flak in the media but I think it would have helped him overall and possibly helped the Democrats hold some of the Sanders people who later went for Trump.

 

[Absolutego]

If he'd been honest and said "I don't like her but I'm going to vote for her as the least bad choice and I think you should too", he'd have managed to hold onto a key audience and keep the spirit of his campaign alive somewhat, he'd get flak in the media but I think it would have helped him overall and possibly helped the Democrats hold some of the Sanders people who later went for Trump.

That's literally exactly what he said, but people weren't having it. From this piece containing his endorsement:

In terms of the presidential election this November, there is no doubt that the election of Donald Trump as president would be a devastating blow to all that we are fighting for. His openly bigoted and pro-billionaire campaign could precipitate the same decades-long rightward shift in American politics that happened after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That rightward shift after Reagan's election infected not just politics as a whole but led to the ascendancy of the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party — an era from which we are still recovering.

I cannot in good conscience let that happen.

To have all of the work we have done in elevating our progressive ideals be dashed away by a complete Republican takeover of Washington — a takeover headed by a candidate that demonizes Latinos, Muslims, women, African Americans, veterans, and others — would be unthinkable.

Today, I endorsed Hillary Clinton to be our next president. I know that some of you will be disappointed with that decision. But I believe that, at this moment, our country, our values, and our common vision for a transformed America, are best served by the defeat of Donald Trump and the election of Hillary Clinton.

Would Bernie have won over Trump? It's hard to say, as that election happening in the first place would put the political and media class into such disarray that any predictive rule about American politics or voter behavior goes out the window. Trump could be predicted because there was an opposing figure for the media and establishment politicians to support. There's a sizeable chance that when forced to choose between Bernie and Trump the media would flip and start soft-supporting Trump, or find some patsy 3rd party candidate like McMuffin or whatever to promote as a 2016 Ross Perot.

 

[Internet War Criminal]

There's a sizeable chance that when forced to choose between Bernie and Trump the media would flip and start soft-supporting Trump

Ok let's go back to posting salt, because this is just getting ridiculous


For example. 7 people are suing Trump for blocking them on Facebook

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of seven individuals who have been blocked on Twitter by President Trump. From the LA Times:

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, names Trump, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and White House director of social media Dan Scavino as defendants. The Knight Institute sent a letter to the White House last month threatening legal action if it didn’t heed its call to unblock followers.

“President Trump’s Twitter account has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important forum for speech by, to, or about the president,” Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director, said in the letter. “The First Amendment applies to this digital forum in the same way it applies to town halls and open school board meetings. The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because they’ve disagreed with the president.”​

 

[Male Idiot]

My ignore button is holy and Kiwifarms should be jailed for getting around it, but Trump ignores me? SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE!

 

[His Dewliness]

That's literally exactly what he said, but people weren't having it. From this piece containing his endorsement:

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of this, I still think he should have been more direct with it though since that whole statement is very heavily padded and his distaste isn't readily obvious since he only mentions how some of his supporters won't like what he's doing. It's semantic and :autism: but I think it should have been more direct and to the point.

Ok let's go back to posting salt, because this is just getting ridiculous

For example. 7 people are suing Trump for blocking them on Facebook

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of seven individuals who have been blocked on Twitter by President Trump.

It doesn't even cover the official POTUS twitter account, they're basically arguing that not being able to see the president's shitposting account is unconstitutional.

 

[TiggerNits]

Semper Shitpostious

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

Ok let's go back to posting salt, because this is just getting ridiculous


For example. 7 people are suing Trump for blocking them on Facebook

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of seven individuals who have been blocked on Twitter by President Trump. From the LA Times:

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, names Trump, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and White House director of social media Dan Scavino as defendants. The Knight Institute sent a letter to the White House last month threatening legal action if it didn’t heed its call to unblock followers.

“President Trump’s Twitter account has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important forum for speech by, to, or about the president,” Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director, said in the letter. “The First Amendment applies to this digital forum in the same way it applies to town halls and open school board meetings. The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because they’ve disagreed with the president.”​

I want to move out of this fucking country.

 

[TowinKarz]

“President Trump’s Twitter account has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important forum for speech by, to, or about the president,” Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director, said in the letter. “The First Amendment applies to this digital forum in the same way it applies to town halls and open school board meetings. The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because they’ve disagreed with the president.”​

Funny, it was nothing but garbage and ignorable shitposting, until you got banned, THEN it's suddenly the only freedom of expression you have......