I didn't think you and your English degree would have a response to actual quantitative analysis.
Chalk up another Flagpole to the douches.
I didn't think you and your English degree would have a response to actual quantitative analysis.
Chalk up another Flagpole to the douches.
EPIC Flagpole wrote:
Pointing it Out! wrote:Your ignorance is hilarious.
Or perhaps your trolling is just pretty cute.
Either way, you are dismissed.
I didn't think you and your English degree would have a response to actual quantitative analysis.
Chalk up another Flagpole to the douches.
Hey, you've been exposed, dude. Just admit you have no idea what the F the words you tried to bullshit your way through mean and move on.
Totally false and fake news. They stole millions. You are a sucker that will believe anything on the internet. You poor little boy.
SAW 777 wrote:
Not that much. Reality doesn't support your BS. They had a highly rated charity that donated a huge percentage of their monies by all accounts (except for the fake ones such as yours).
Hey FAGpole is that why you are the Presidential Election "EXPERT?"😆
FAGpole you stupid fckâ—ï¸ðŸ˜‚😂😂
I can play that game too. Your sources, watch the video, disagree. Aren't you smart enough to understand what they are trying to do? You're not, great, I didn't think so.
Pac 11.5 wrote:
COLLUSION!
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKBN19C1Y3?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=594aa73f04d3014e110fffa9&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
You were saying:)
SAW 777 wrote:
Not that much. Reality doesn't support your BS. They had a highly rated charity that donated a huge percentage of their monies by all accounts (except for the fake ones such as yours).
FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:
EPIC Flagpole wrote:I didn't think you and your English degree would have a response to actual quantitative analysis.
Chalk up another Flagpole to the douches.
Hey, you've been exposed, dude. Just admit you have no idea what the F the words you tried to bullshit your way through mean and move on.
I'm the only one explaining how to quantitatively prove the accuracy of something. You're just throwing insults and trying to spread fake news on "not" being schooled.
Sorry bud. It's the difference between a guy with two engineering degrees (EPIC Flagpole), and a guy with BA in who-knows-what (you).
You (you) can't talk your way out of being stupid.
Here ya go big boy! Why is your video more on target than this one? Go to 2:00 into it or watch the whole thing. You Dems are delusional!!!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBQHEKB8zyo
SAW 777 wrote:
Dick Morris - mostly smoke and mirrors on your end:
http://www.snopes.com/dick-morris-hillary-clinton/Foundation a slush fund also false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/Don't be stupid.
EPIC Flagpole wrote:
FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:Hey, you've been exposed, dude. Just admit you have no idea what the F the words you tried to bullshit your way through mean and move on.
I'm the only one explaining how to quantitatively prove the accuracy of something. You're just throwing insults and trying to spread fake news on "not" being schooled.
Sorry bud. It's the difference between a guy with two engineering degrees (EPIC Flagpole), and a guy with BA in who-knows-what (you).
You (you) can't talk your way out of being stupid.
your argument is that if the polls had predicted a dead heat but someone won by 0.2%...that means the polls were off by a factor of infinity..that is a product of two engineering degrees?
dude, your argument has devolved into what 'accurate' means. I say the word means 'between 0-2% You say the window is narrower.
Can we leave it at that?
Politifact is full of sh*t. I have discussed this previously how they arrived at the false claim. If you actually look at the tax return the truth will be revealed. I discussed this topic previously. Search for it.
SAW 777 wrote:
Dick Morris - mostly smoke and mirrors on your end:
http://www.snopes.com/dick-morris-hillary-clinton/Foundation a slush fund also false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/Don't be stupid.
eric a blair wrote:
EPIC Flagpole wrote:I'm the only one explaining how to quantitatively prove the accuracy of something. You're just throwing insults and trying to spread fake news on "not" being schooled.
Sorry bud. It's the difference between a guy with two engineering degrees (EPIC Flagpole), and a guy with BA in who-knows-what (you).
You (you) can't talk your way out of being stupid.
your argument is that if the polls had predicted a dead heat but someone won by 0.2%...that means the polls were off by a factor of infinity..that is a product of two engineering degrees?
dude, your argument has devolved into what 'accurate' means. I say the word means 'between 0-2% You say the window is narrower.
Can we leave it at that?
Actually, if you look back at my FIRST response to you, my argument STARTED with what "accurate" means!! (You said "cold clear accurate" to describe the national polls.)
This is a fine example of your tendency to rationalize and revise history in your favor.
itsbaddude wrote:
Politifact is full of sh*t. I have discussed this previously how they arrived at the false claim. If you actually look at the tax return the truth will be revealed. I discussed this topic previously. Search for it.
The truth is out there. Search for it Mulder!
You conspiracy people crack me up.
Meanwhile, we have a real criminal investigation of our president going on. But that one must be fake. It's not really happening. Nothing to see here.
eric a blair wrote:
EPIC Flagpole wrote:I'm the only one explaining how to quantitatively prove the accuracy of something. You're just throwing insults and trying to spread fake news on "not" being schooled.
Sorry bud. It's the difference between a guy with two engineering degrees (EPIC Flagpole), and a guy with BA in who-knows-what (you).
You (you) can't talk your way out of being stupid.
your argument is that if the polls had predicted a dead heat but someone won by 0.2%...that means the polls were off by a factor of infinity..that is a product of two engineering degrees?
dude, your argument has devolved into what 'accurate' means. I say the word means 'between 0-2% You say the window is narrower.
Can we leave it at that?
would you be happy if you hired someone to do a job and they only got within 20% of the actual result? They were over 1000% off in some states for gosh sakes.
Just curious why do you think Hilary lost the election?
EPIC Flagpole wrote:
FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:Hey, you've been exposed, dude. Just admit you have no idea what the F the words you tried to bullshit your way through mean and move on.
I'm the only one explaining how to quantitatively prove the accuracy of something. You're just throwing insults and trying to spread fake news on "not" being schooled.
Sorry bud. It's the difference between a guy with two engineering degrees (EPIC Flagpole), and a guy with BA in who-knows-what (you).
You (you) can't talk your way out of being stupid.
Really, Mr. "engineering degrees" (oooooooooohh!) ? Is that why you have never even attempted to show why the following quote (from you, I believe) makes any sense at all (after being invited to do so over and over again)?
"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."
Please feel free to explain why dividing these two margins of victory (one actual, one from the polls) makes any sense at all. Otherwise, yeah, you've been exposed.
Can't wait for your explanation. This ought to be good.
Reasonable wrote:
eric a blair wrote:your argument is that if the polls had predicted a dead heat but someone won by 0.2%...that means the polls were off by a factor of infinity..that is a product of two engineering degrees?
dude, your argument has devolved into what 'accurate' means. I say the word means 'between 0-2% You say the window is narrower.
Can we leave it at that?
would you be happy if you hired someone to do a job and they only got within 20% of the actual result? They were over 1000% off in some states for gosh sakes.
Just curious why do you think Hilary lost the election?
It appears that you, like your little friend, do not understand percentages.
Good job!
Can we please stop quoting that entire vomit inducing thread? It is giving me AIDS. Don't feed the trolls.
FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:
Reasonable wrote:would you be happy if you hired someone to do a job and they only got within 20% of the actual result? They were over 1000% off in some states for gosh sakes.
Just curious why do you think Hilary lost the election?
It appears that you, like your little friend, do not understand percentages.
Good job!
Can you please show me how those percentages are wrong?
FAGpole, you are getting the 💩 Kicked out of youâ—ï¸ðŸ˜†
DFF You looked so fetching in your pink thong under your Bro Romper, watching Brokeback Mountain for the 7th time. I know I hurt you but you're adorbs.