Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

SAW 777 wrote:

I know you're struggling to accept this:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/27/402625347/fact-check-is-the-clinton-foundation-the-most-transparent

Super relevant since the Clintons are still in government. This is a deflection at all. Thanks for posting!

Since you're clearly trolling now- having been owned quantitatively- I'll try to keep this succinct. But I really do want you to learn how to analyze data, so perhaps it'll be longer than I would like.

1) My original message was questioning Agip describing the polls as "cold clear accuracy." In doing so, there are many different ways to prove that the polls were not accurate in a statistical sense (not a relative, "better than other polls" sense... which doesn't mean anything) at all. There's obviously more than one way to do so. Following? Ok...

2) I have in fact already explained why the quote you keep hanging on to from my original message does make sense. I'll just copy from my follow-on message, since it answered the call:

"My lord you're dense. It certainly is meaningful and relevant, as being off by such a factor is not "cold clear accuracy", which was my point [that you continue to omit for some reason]. If the figure was 2.1 vs 2.2, or even 2.1 vs 2.5, I'd agree it was pretty accurate, as these are both low enough figures AND within an acceptable tolerance to be considered accurate (the standard deviation and confidence interval also supports this theory by the way). 2.1 vs 3.3, especially when including an outlier like the +2 for Trump, certainly does not reflect "cold clear accuracy", which again, was the point. (Removing the outlier results in 2.1 vs 3.8, which is far less "accurate", considering just a single poll in the sample even matches the 2.1 figure!)"

So, there you go. It's not about "dividing two numbers" as you stubbornly keep trying to focus on. It's about realizing that being that far off, even when dealing with single digit numbers, is not "accuracy" (again, the basis of this entire discussion) with the numbers of polls we had at our disposal. This wasn't a single poll we're dealing with; this was hundreds of polls, with 90%+ being on one side of the eventual outcome.

But I realized that I could do better... Still following?...

3) As I mention in #2, you can go a step further than the basic 5 second assessment method I applied originally with traditional statistical methods.

Confidence intervals are a great tool to use here because they are testing the reliability of the estimation procedure ("polls" are the estimation procedure in this case).

Let's use these final 10 polls from RealClearPolitics Poll of Polls:

Bloomberg 11/4 - 11/6 799 LV 3.5 46 43 Clinton +3

IBD/TIPP Tracking 11/4 - 11/7 1107 LV 3.1 43 42 Clinton +1

Economist/YouGov 11/4 - 11/7 3669 LV -- 49 45 Clinton +4

LA Times/USC Tracking 11/1 - 11/7 2935 LV 4.5 44 47 Trump +3

ABC/Wash Post Tracking 11/3 - 11/6 2220 LV 2.5 49 46 Clinton +3

FOX News 11/3 - 11/6 1295 LV 2.5 48 44 Clinton +4

Monmouth 11/3 - 11/6 748 LV 3.6 50 44 Clinton +6

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/3 - 11/5 1282 LV 2.7 48 43 Clinton +5

CBS News 11/2 - 11/6 1426 LV 3.0 47 43 Clinton +4

Reuters/Ipsos 11/2 - 11/6 2196 LV 2.3 44 39 Clinton +5

Right off the bat you can glance and see that "Clinton +2" is not listed once, and they lean strongly to one side of that number. The most common values are Clinton +4, and eight (8 of 10!!!) of the values are on one side of the ultimate outcome. "Cold clear accuracy," you say? Come on.

Moving on... Use the sample values of -3, 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6 and calculate for standard deviation and confidence intervals (Google a calculator).

The actual outcome of 2.1 starts falling outside of the confidence interval at about 84%, meaning the actual outcome being outside that window was only likely to occur 16% of the time. But it occurs equally on either end of the hypothetical Bell Curve, so 16/2 = 8%. So the actual outcome being 2.1 or smaller was likely to occur just 8% of the time. That 8% includes HRC +2.1 and all numbers in the direction of Trump (HRC +2.0, +1.9, +1.8...0...over to Trump +100- haha). So, it was probably about a 3% chance that it was going to end up HRC +2.1.

So... "Cold clear accuracy"? I think not.

...But you come back and call me names- that'll show how much I was "exposed". LOL.

FAGpole must really enjoy getting the 💩 Kicked out it❗️😆

Yep, and you completely blow off the truth, the video on CNN, there's zero evidence in 7 months, admitted to by the host. The truth is out there moron, I provided it. You are a simpleton and a sheep. The criminal investigation was on your girl Hillary. You know you've been beat and it's really getting to ya, isn't it?

Fat hurts wrote:

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.

I know that you're struggling to accept this, but sooner or later you'll have to go back in your hole. CNN admits it right there in the video at 2 minutes in, there's no proof of anything!!!! You just don't like the fact that he won and your side didn't. Clinton is literally as corrupt as they come, hurts doesn't it? It's really destroying you isn't it? 4 more years and maybe more:):):) ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trumpish Rules wrote:

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.

Libbbtwats really enjoy getting the 💩 Kicked out of them, and it is a LOT OF 💩❗️😆😂😆😂😆😂😆

Flagpole and his cronies will dismiss any video that you post. It's not true, look at my video instead. Your video will be discredited and theirs is the truth. I've followed this thread since the beginning and the crying has never stopped.

Anything the right posts, the left says is wrong. Anything the left posts, they claim is fact. To be that embarrassingly obvious doesn't bode well for a civil discussion.

You can list whitewater, travelgate, etc...they will dismiss everything. You can post the link, the video, the whatever, they will claim it's false and not the truth. Again, how can anyone listen to the left when they dismiss everything and admit nothing?

Flagpole?, and the others posting on the left are probably decent people who simply don't want to hear anything but their point as they lost and are trying to justify the loss.

Russia did not tamper with our voting system and change votes, that's ludicrous on all levels. Post all of the links that you want. There is ZERO proof of it, period. When the right posts something disputing it, it's not the the truth.

Seriously, how do you guys want anyone to listen to you and concede that even one thing that you're saying is the truth when you constantly claim the other side doesn't tell the truth?

Tick, tick, tick...that is a joke of a statement. I'll bet Flagpole or anyone on this board that Donald Trump will not be removed from office, that's simply stupid talk.

Look at the left and how many times they've been INVESTIGATED over the years. Nothing happens and they were NOT innocent. Flagpole claims that Obama wasn't shady, yeah, ok sure dude.

The people voted and the percentage of popular votes that Clinton won by and the states that she won the majority of those is simply minuscule at best. The right can argue that many of the California votes were made by lots and lots of illegals, and the left will dismiss it or say prove it. If Trump had won the popular vote, you'd still be complaining. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc...he won them fair and square.

The right says prove Russia did any tampering and someone posts a link that proves nothing.

You had a black democratic (socialist) president and had 8 years of him, what do you want? That's almost a decade of Democratic dominance, yet you're still complaining. Not one person on the left has listed the crap that Obama pulled and got away with, not one you.

If I tell you that Obamacare shot up our family deductible to $5000 a year, you call me a liar or say too bad or even "oh well". We have to pay for others, that's what Obamacare really is, period.

We don't make $100,000 combined, but we feel that we should have to pay something to help others, and we don't mind doing it---but $5000 out of pocket?

Investigate all you want. After 7 months, zero evidence, just innuendos from an unhappy side. Clinton screwed up and lied about her emails, watch Gowdy grill her as she still lies about how may she turned over and literally makes up numbers that don't exist. The left watches the the same video and says, hogwash.

Flagpole doesn't like people bringing up anything that Clinton or Obama did and would rather talk about the current president. Yet, Trump won, the election has been over for over 7 months and he's talking about Russia's influence with ads that changed people's minds!!!!!! Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too!

Now, Flagpole knows that's a valid point and he'll deflect what I wrote, never admitting that he's wrong, and post something about the right. You guys really don't have a leg to stand on and your links are no better than those posted by the right. He'll list investigations that are going nowhere.

Good luck Lefties as you lost and are wasting your time trying to change something that you can't, just as I can't change my family deductible...as of yet;)

p.s. typos don't change the meaning of a post

Lefties need to move on wrote:

Investigate all you want.

ok. Thanks for the green light. Will do.

CIA

NSA

House

Senate

Special Counsel

Doing the work - I'm sure they'll be glad to have your assent.

Of course you listed nothing that Clinton and Obama were investigate on, how convenient. I'm sure they'll be glad to have your assent. Carry on oh biased one.

eric a blair wrote:

Lefties need to move on wrote:

Investigate all you want.

ok. Thanks for the green light. Will do.

CIA

NSA

House

Senate

Special Counsel

Doing the work - I'm sure they'll be glad to have your assent.

no idea what your point is. Clintons were investigated and found to be innocent. Done. Now it's trump's turn.I am completely clueless about why the right wing has a problem with this. Oh, and I forgot the FBI. They are investigating too.

Blairing with no sense wrote:

Of course you listed nothing that Clinton and Obama were investigate on, how convenient. I'm sure they'll be glad to have your assent. Carry on oh biased one.

eric a blair wrote:

ok. Thanks for the green light. Will do.

CIA

NSA

House

Senate

Special Counsel

Doing the work - I'm sure they'll be glad to have your assent.

agip is nothing more than a 💩 Filled piñata.😂😂😆

Blairing with no sense wrote:

Of course you listed nothing that Clinton and Obama were investigate on, how convenient. I'm sure they'll be glad to have your assent. Carry on oh biased one.

eric a blair wrote:

ok. Thanks for the green light. Will do.

CIA

NSA

House

Senate

Special Counsel

Doing the work - I'm sure they'll be glad to have your assent.

Oh hey here's trump again inappropriately telling gov't officials to announce the president is innocent, before any sort of investigation.

Nothing to look at here, move along.

Gawd I can't even imagine (literally, I cannot imagine) the merdestorm from the right wing if a democrat pulled any of this garbage.

You people....how

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/intel-chiefs-trump-refute-collusion/index.html

exthrower wrote:

So what....They SHOULD refute it because there's nothing there....Dude, you are desperate....

you really shouldn't be admitting in public that you have access to the same information that the FBI, CIA, NSA, House, Senate and Special Counsel have. I know you have seen it all and are reporting back to us out of good faith, but really - you should keep that kind of security breach quiet.

exthrower wrote:

So what....They SHOULD refute it because there's nothing there....Dude, you are desperate....

and I'm sure you would also agree that Bill Clinton was right to speak to the AG in that airplane, because HRC was innocent and all, and the AG should have announced that, before the FBI was done with its investigation.

eric a blair wrote:

Oh hey here's trump again inappropriately telling gov't officials to announce the president is innocent, before any sort of investigation.

Nothing to look at here, move along.

Gawd I can't even imagine (literally, I cannot imagine) the merdestorm from the right wing if a democrat pulled any of this garbage.

You people....how

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/intel-chiefs-trump-refute-collusion/index.html

This is just recycled garbage from 3-4 weeks ago. These same guys said they did NOT get pressured from Trump or anyone else to alter their investigations.

It's clear that Trump was indeed trying to get officials to simply state the truth that he was not under investigation personally to help stop the uncontrollable speculation machine that is the MSM. But everyone has to cover their own butt before they cover his, so no one is going to do that.

But like Rubio said to Comey, "So, the only thing that WASN'T leaked to the press was that the POTUS was NOT under investigation."

Politic much?

It's a Bug's Life 2 wrote:

Yep, and you completely blow off the truth, the video on CNN, there's zero evidence in 7 months, admitted to by the host. The truth is out there moron, I provided it. You are a simpleton and a sheep. The criminal investigation was on your girl Hillary. You know you've been beat and it's really getting to ya, isn't it?

Maybe you missed the part where the investigation into Hillary was completed without an indictment of anyone?

I guess in internet-world, they are still going to try to lock her up?

In the real world, the criminal investigation into our president continues. Mueller is still hiring more and more investigators and lawyers because there is so much sleazy stuff to look into.

But keep telling yourself there is no evidence. Mueller doesn't have any evidence to follow up on. He's just hiring people so they can sit and do nothing.

you see no problem with the subject of an investigation asking several investigators to lay off. Doesn't bother you. Seems fine to you. Especially when the subject of the investigation subsequently FIRES one of the people doing the investigation. Because of the investigation.

got it.

insanity. Do you hear yourself?

anyway, of course proving the crime of 'obstruction of justice' has nothing to do with whether the investigator felt pressured. Nothing.

So you get zero points.

Bro, you've been getting zero points for close to two years now. You thought you had a bunch of points, but then they were all taken away on one day. We have all the points. You still have zero points. You are unable to get any points, because you continue to Flagpole time after time.

I see nothing wrong with saying, "hey, the MSM is out of control with these false accusations... and no evidence has come out for months now... could you help a guy out to level the playing field a bit in the headlines?"

Now, it has since come out on its own, so things are taking care of themselves. Which is why you STILL have zero points.

The Senate's Authoritarian Party has released their Death for Tax Cuts Bill. Can't wait to watch old maverick McCain and "principled" Ben Sasse make a show of wringing their hands for a while before voting "aye."