Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

eric a blair wrote:

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

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.

DEFLECT! ATTACK! DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION!

GO ON THE OFFENSIVE! LIE IF YOU HAVE TO!

That's your method, and trump's method. You guys should get a room. In Russia. With the hidden video cameras and all.

eric a blair wrote:

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

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.

DEFLECT! ATTACK! DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION!

GO ON THE OFFENSIVE! LIE IF YOU HAVE TO!

That's your method, and trump's method. You guys should get a room. In Russia. With the hidden video cameras and all.

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:

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.

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.

L L wrote:

Now to actual legislation ...

The Better Care Reconciliation Act is out.

(repeal and replace Obamacare)

The good news is that the war has been won. Congress wants the federal government involved in healthcare for the country forever going forward.

Any plan that gets passed will be better that what we had before Obama became president.

The Senate version does away with the House's tax credits by age.

And actually has subsidies by income, but fewer will receive help with a lower threshold

It gets rid of the individual mandate.

Eliminates the extra taxes on the wealthy.

Cuts back on medicaid expansion down the road

It defunds planned parenthood for a year

It keeps protection for those with pre-existing conditions

I don't know if the exchanges stay

So there will be fewer levers to pay for things because the tax income is gone and no mandate means young healthy people can opt out without penalty and the rest of the people will have to cough up more.

And there are less benefits offered in the way of subsidies and medicaid help for middle and low income earners

The wealthy do get a tax break and don't lose any benefits from before.

There will certainly be millions of people losing benefits and losing coverage with this plan compared to the ACA when the CBO scores it

No democrat will vote for this because they like what's there better.

And Republicans like Rand Paul may not vote for this because it helps some people.

Will it pass the Senate?

How about the House? They couldn't get the votes for something similar in their first try this year.

Is there an echo in here???? wrote:

To admit to not knowing what his point was is something I'd never admit to if I was on your side. Clinton was investigated and given a free pass. I have liberal friends who are honest enough to admit that. Was she prosecuted and locked up, no, but she clearly lied.

You call Trump a liar and Clinton is squeaky clean, correct?

Does your Mommy still love you?

Below is your honest candidate who lied to make herself sound as if she risked her life...nothing could be farther from the truth. It's my favorite of many Clinton lies...ask David Geffen you loser.

__________________________________________________________________

"I remember landing under sniper fire," Clinton said during a George Washington University campaign event on March 17, 2008. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Clinton added that the feeling in the White House at the time of her visit was "if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady."

Clinton’s claim was found to be false. The Washington Post noted that "a review of more than 100 news stories from the time documented no security threats to the First Lady."

The claim was also refuted by actor Sinbad, who once played a secret service agent in a movie and joined Clinton on her 1996 trip to Bosnia.

Sinbad said there were no bullets being shot at them, and that the only scary part of the trip was deciding where they were going to eat.

"I think the only ‘red-phone' moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place,'" Sinbad said in 2008. "I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

____________________________________________________________________

eric a blair wrote:

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.

eric a blair wrote:

I agree HRC lied about the sniper fire and either lied or misled about the emails.

that's two lies. Trump lies around twice per day, last I saw. Seriously. He lies around twice per day. So HRC has one day covered.

I will say that the reason she got off on the email things is that civilians are never prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. Military, yes. If the civilian handed materials over to unauthorized people, yes. But I know of only one civilian prosecuted for simply mishandling documents.

That is what Comey meant when he said no prosecutor would indict over what she did with the emails.

So the basic answer to you is that HRC did lie a few times, but Trump has lied hundreds of times. It's the difference between me and the guy who shot scalise. I've sped on the highway. Too fast, I was. He shot people with a rifle. Both have violated the law. But we aren't equal.

Is there an echo in here???? wrote:

To admit to not knowing what his point was is something I'd never admit to if I was on your side. Clinton was investigated and given a free pass. I have liberal friends who are honest enough to admit that. Was she prosecuted and locked up, no, but she clearly lied.

You call Trump a liar and Clinton is squeaky clean, correct?

Does your Mommy still love you?

Below is your honest candidate who lied to make herself sound as if she risked her life...nothing could be farther from the truth. It's my favorite of many Clinton lies...ask David Geffen you loser.

__________________________________________________________________

"I remember landing under sniper fire," Clinton said during a George Washington University campaign event on March 17, 2008. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Clinton added that the feeling in the White House at the time of her visit was "if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady."

Clinton’s claim was found to be false. The Washington Post noted that "a review of more than 100 news stories from the time documented no security threats to the First Lady."

The claim was also refuted by actor Sinbad, who once played a secret service agent in a movie and joined Clinton on her 1996 trip to Bosnia.

Sinbad said there were no bullets being shot at them, and that the only scary part of the trip was deciding where they were going to eat.

"I think the only ‘red-phone' moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place,'" Sinbad said in 2008. "I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

____________________________________________________________________

Geffen Records Inc. wrote:

Ok then, list his twice a day lies, I'll wait for it.

Here's someone who actually slept in the same building that they did...unlike Flagpole who will lie like there's no tomorrow. But if Geffen said Trump was a liar, then he'd post it and it would be gospel. You lefties are pathetic liars.

Maureen Dowd quoted former Clinton supporter David Geffen as saying a variety of unkind things about the former first couple. "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling," said the media mogul.

"It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."

eric a blair wrote:

I agree HRC lied about the sniper fire and either lied or misled about the emails.

that's two lies. Trump lies around twice per day, last I saw. Seriously. He lies around twice per day. So HRC has one day covered.

I will say that the reason she got off on the email things is that civilians are never prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. Military, yes. If the civilian handed materials over to unauthorized people, yes. But I know of only one civilian prosecuted for simply mishandling documents.

That is what Comey meant when he said no prosecutor would indict over what she did with the emails.

So the basic answer to you is that HRC did lie a few times, but Trump has lied hundreds of times. It's the difference between me and the guy who shot scalise. I've sped on the highway. Too fast, I was. He shot people with a rifle. Both have violated the law. But we aren't equal.

FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:

EPIC Flagpole wrote:

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.

LOL Good one, dude.

Now perhaps you can actually try to answer the question without any diversions (Oh wait, you're a Trumpette - that is simply not possible for you. Feel free to prove me wrong on this by actually answering the question).

WRT:

"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."

Why do you think that dividing by 2.1 is appropriate? Is 2.1 relevant to the scale of the numbers here?

Would being off by 1.2% (as in 3.3% vs 2.1%) be a whole lot better if the poll vs actual numbers were 7.2% vs 6.0% (maybe something like 3x better)?

What about if the poll number was 1.21% vs the final result of 0.01%? Should we then interpret this "inaccuracy" as being 1.2/.01 = 12,000% ? Wow, those would have been SO much worse polling results, no?

Go for it, dude. Let's see if you can actually answer the question being asked. I'd put the probability that you can and will at 0%. How can I be so confident? You're a Trumpette. Prove me wrong.