Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Breitbart is based as fuck by the way, interesting you (Nero) call it a neonazi site lol.

It's creator specifically envisioned it as "the Huffington Post of the right." That is a clear political bias. I would have strong doubts regarding the Huffington Post of anything, but that's just me.

Oh it's absolutely biased, but it's not a Stormfront type site by any means.

Nah, it's more like clickbait. The renegade jew article is an example, and then there is that creep that everyone in the alt right seems to love, Milo Yiannopoulos, that makes the jewish gay equivalent of blackfacing (yeah, the guy is a turbo douchebag, I wouldn't even be surprised if he is not what he claims). Are they trolling or for real?

Not sure if [Removed by Support], but [Removed by Support] read it (I still remember when randomly I found a comment section where neonazis and average conservatives were having an argument about if jews control everything, wish I could link it, it was hilarious). It surprises me how many of them I can find while randomly wandering on the internet in relatively popular sites, and that some even try to pander to them.

If you want actual [Removed by Support], reddit (r/europe, r/the_donald, and so on) has them for sure.

The curious thing about this is how incestuous is the relationship between the right wing press and Trump campaign, and how horrible were his choices (Roger Ailes left Fox because he harassed many people, and Gannon...well, his page is absolute shit, I have to disagree about that). 5D Korean Starcraft!

Bonus: redditors trolling Trump supporters that think everyone that opposes Trump is paid to do so.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Not sure if [Removed by Support], but [Removed by Support]read it

This.

Smells like shit, looks like shit, attracts flies... must be shit. It's interesting just how many connections Trump's campaign has to unabashed white nationalism.

Breitbart has a fucking "black crime" tag. Gee, I wonder if it has a "white crime" tag?

It's like the Trump/Duke connection. I can't say for sure that Trump is a [Removed by Support](very likely no, although I despise his politics), but he knew the guy for sure from the Reform party and took his time to disavow him. It was pandering to the white supremacist crowd.

I don't know what you mean because Melissa killed all the posts lel.

Well, to be fair, it's inflamatory. You know, to avoid a flame war, but most people here are beyond that, really. Oh well. Mods are lawful neutral.

If you pay attention you should know what I said anyway.

Fun fact: that guy Bannon has worked for Goldman Sachs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"

Antnee wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Not sure if [Removed by Support], but [Removed by Support]read it

This.

Smells like shit, looks like shit, attracts flies... must be shit. It's interesting just how many connections Trump's campaign has to unabashed white nationalism.

Breitbart has a fucking "black crime" tag. Gee, I wonder if it has a "white crime" tag?

The same things (looks like, smells like, feels like, attracts non-desirables) can be said about most media outlets. The difference is that the flies with blue eyes are complaining about the flies with green eyes.





Far too many people assuming that their stuff smells like perfume and everyone else's stuff smells like you know what.

Well, time to go attend PoE Supporter privilege classes so I can atone for my crimes against the non paying players.

.......


OK, a little fact checking = I found no "section" Black Crime on Breitbart.com

There is a url for articles with a "tag" of black crime
with 6 articles listed

Google shows 1030 links to Breitbart articles with "black crime", 303 llinks to Breitbart articles with "white crime" out of 64,500 links to "crime" on Breitbart.com

That's .009% , which I would say is underbiased if anything given the uniform crime statistics from the federal government.

By comparison CNN.com
has 905 "black crime" and 376 "white crime" which is similar to the Breitbart distribution, but CNN does have a much larger number of cime links in total, at 580,000 .


The Breitbart "Sections" (as of 8-20-2016) are:
Home
Big Government
Big Journalism
Big Hollywood
National Security
Tech
Video
Sports
The Wires
2016 : The Race
Breitbart London
Breitbart Jerusalem
Breitbart Texas
Breitbart California
The Conversation
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Breitbart Jobs
.......


There was a time when identification of of the perpetrator's race wasn't considered racist, but factual. Now, people would rather just look away from the needless violence and pretend it doesn't exist, instead of trying to figure out why it continues to happen. Rather than being part of the solution, these people are enabling the downward spiral to continue.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43


The disparity is real and there is an underlying problem. Blaming it on "race" in any way is as dumb as blaming people for being left handed. That still doesn't mean something isn't an underlying factor, but rather we aren't looking at the problem itself properly.

People who blame the "system" aren't helping. People who blame "profiling" aren't helping. We have bleeding victims in the emergency room and the media is blaming the doctors for looking more agressively for bleeding.

What is the underlying problem? There are some theories, but no validated research studies yet. (some are getting tantalizingly close)

A few have gotten closer to a potential problem. but it will take a longitudinal study with many thousand enrolled to identify the complex mechanism of the causative factors.

TL/DR - the people point fingers and crying "racism" are often the ones blaming firefighters for the problem instead of trying to prevent the fires.

"

Antnee wrote:

"

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Now, you tell me why that poll is flat out fucking retarded. I'll wait.

(That goes for both of you. How about you actually read that page, and tell me exactly how "PRIMARY MODEL" gets its numbers. Again, I'll wait)

Not sure if you meant to link the "primary model" http://primarymodel.com/since that is what your comment references. To my view, the primary model resembles sports statistics (no one has ever come back from 3 games behind...) kind of logic, with only a weak cause and effect (multiple presidential term backlash). The primary model (whether predictive or not since 1996) doesn't seem to take into account the reasons for voter backlash. The GOP sweep into congressional power with their "Contract with America" for instance, and the subsequent loss of power when the GOP failed to fulfill that contract completely.

As for the link you cited ]http://cesrusc.org/election/ (in case that is the poll you thought was bad with Trump at 44.2 and Clinton at 43.6 as of 8/19)

I would say that their methodology is slightly different, but longitudinal studies can be excellent for quality data - provided that your sample is representative.

How they get their numbers - quoted from the site:


"Every day, we invite one-seventh of the members of the UAS election panel to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that… (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win? As their answers come in, we update the charts daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week’s responses. "

Survey Methods

The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll is part of the Understanding America Study (UAS) at the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research. It is being conducted in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and the Los Angeles Times.

The team responsible for the Daybreak Poll four years ago developed the successful RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, which was based on the same methodology.

The Daybreak Poll is based on an internet probability panel survey. Daybreak Poll members are participants in the ongoing UAS internet probability panel of about 5,000 U.S. residents who were randomly selected from among all households in the United States. Members of recruited households that did not have internet access were provided with tablets and internet service. The UAS panel is still growing. We project it will reach about 6000 members in the coming months.

More than 3200 UAS panel members so far (July 2016) have agreed to participate in answering questions about the election, and we expect that number will increase over time. Each day, 1/7th of those who have agreed to participate (more than 400 per day) are invited to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that... (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) if you were to vote, you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else (percentages add to 100) and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win (percentages add to 100). The order of the candidates in the questions is randomized so that about half of the respondents see Clinton as the first choice and half of the respondents see Trump as the first choice.

Each night, Daybreak Poll results are weighted to match demographic characteristics (such as race and gender) from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using how respondents tell us how they voted in that election. Then the latest results, averages of all of the prior week’s responses, are posted online at https://election.usc.edu and on the LATimes.com Politics site shortly after midnight.

In particular, to obtain the values shown in the election forecast chart, we weight each respondent's likelihood of voting for a candidate with their likelihood of voting in the presidential election. Next we calculate the mean of that number for all respondents during the last 7 days, taking into account respondent level weights based on demographics and past voting behavior. This is the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate. The graph shows the estimated fraction of the votes that a candidate will get, which is computed by dividing the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate by the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for any candidate. The latter is analogously obtained as the weighted mean of the respondents' likelihood of voting in the presidential election.

To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and values. Links to documents detailing question text, sample sizes, response rates and other information for these separate surveys are provided in the detailed information section below, linked to stories or press releases where the results were disseminated.

That awkward moment when CNN insinuates that all blacks are felons.

"

Xavderion wrote:

That awkward moment when CNN insinuates that all blacks are felons.

CNN probably could have taken "black" out of headline and it still would have worked. Trying to take away someone's right to vote is a nearly foolproof method for making them vote against you (if they vote at all). And there are plenty of white felons. Particularly at Trump rallies.