Drink f*** fight wrote:
^drunkard posting a nothing burger
Drink f*** fight wrote:
^drunkard posting a nothing burger
Man I think you are great. You are a minority neo-nazis. Tell the true, how many guns do you have? Come on DFF don't be shy. Do you repeat how no one could ever take your guns away? They said that all the time.I should have taped the neo-nazis conversations for you so you can hear what they say about liberals. You would love it!So how many guns? Don't be afraid to say!
Drink f*** fight wrote:
I knew you were a Lilly white boy😂😂😂😂. That was enough to set you off😆
You libbbtwats are so fckn transparent😆😂😆😂😆
Lilly white hands softer than a baby's a$$ because you have never worked a day in your pathetic lives😆
First, in general, a statistician is not a scientist.Second, I've never heard either claim to be infallible.I supported Silver because I found his methodology to be more convincing than any other I've seen. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silver did far better than all the rest of the aggregators. Silver was not "way off". He was probably spot on. Trump probably did have about a 30% chance of winning.
Fat hurts wrote:
I supported Silver because I found his methodology to be more convincing than any other I've seen. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silver did far better than all the rest of the aggregators.
This... the info was there, but people didn't want to believe it. The panel on NPR was frequently discussing whether Trump should drop out when 538's winning percentage would drop to 'only' 20%. In the days before the election the creator of the Huffington Post model (giving Trump a 2% chance) even attacked Nate Silver.
Sir Richard Branson is in the beginning of that video.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
For the record, Eric Blair using his former handle agip, criticized Flagpole.
For the record, you've just proven yourself the Queen of Dumbfvckery (Flagpole is the King).
Now, DO try to keep up.
Tell us how soft your Lilly white girl hands are white boy😆😆😆
I had you pegged from the get go😂â—ï¸
I know you live on mommies basement. I bet an honest days work scares the $hit out of you😆
Libbbtwats🤦â€â™‚ï¸
DFF is too scared to answer my question.How big is your arsenal?How many times have you repeated no one will take away your guns?How often do you say how tough you are, do you you make fun of people, and say how weak liberal are? That's is just what the neo-nazis do.You are a minority neo-nazis!! That is so funny.So if you are a minority, than what groups do you hate? neo-nazis always hate groups?I have been to their meetings and you are JUST LIKE the radical ones.(The only difference is that they seem a little braver)
Drink f*** fight wrote:
Tell us how soft your Lilly white girl hands are white boy😆😆😆
I had you pegged from the get go😂â—ï¸
I know you live on mommies basement. I bet an honest days work scares the $hit out of you😆
Libbbtwats🤦â€â™‚ï¸
Do not conflate tolerance for intolerance with tolerance for the intolerant to freely express their ideas on intolerance. Democracy depends on the second part.Make sense?
Tolerance of Intolerance? No! wrote:
https://i.redd.it/i69jnt27a8gz.png
Itsbaddude expresses the papertiger fallacy. He starts to argue that no one should trust scientists 100%.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a scientist has never been wrong. But in some areas they are 100% right or pretty darn close.
Wow man you are so smart. Here I am giving you real life example, you refute it and then prove my point. LOL
Conundrum wrote:
Itsbaddude expresses the papertiger fallacy. He starts to argue that no one should trust scientists 100%.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a scientist has never been wrong. But in some areas they are 100% right or pretty darn close.
I'm going to burst your bubble again. Nate Silver used his model and predicted Hillary would get 302 electoral votes. So instead of quoting nonsense, like Trump probably had a 28.6% chance of winning, use the actual meaning of the number. So yes, he was way off.Nate Silver's methodology is not fully public. I have not idea what you mean you studied his methodology. You'd be better off claiming he predicted Obama's victory and that is why you like him.Sam Wang is a scientist, not a political scientist, a real scientist.
It depends on what you mean. Sure in a free democratic society people can "freely" express their intolerant point of view. But, there are and should be consequences for that expression from society at large. I am not advocating the government hand out consequences for such behavior but if intolerant people lose their job / are alienated from society at large I think that's appropriate. Violence is not okay but civil resistance to such views including unpleasant consequences is the bedrock of a modern western society.Intolerant people are not victims. They are not oppressed. They hold views that antithetical to modern western society. Examples of intolerant groups that should be called out and resisted includes the KKK, now-Nazis, white nationalists, AND all extreme religious groups (yes, I do mean Muslims in addition to Christian and Jewish extremists).
Conundrum wrote:
Do not conflate tolerance for intolerance with tolerance for the intolerant to freely express their ideas on intolerance. Democracy depends on the second part.
Make sense?
Tolerance of Intolerance? No! wrote:https://i.redd.it/i69jnt27a8gz.png
Did Trump just turn Arizona blue?
His mouth is really out of control.
This is what happens in communists countries such as Cuba. Yes, you can speak freely, but you may wind up a political prisoner.What you are really advocating is that people conform to your views or else. You throw buzz words like Nazi, KKK, etc to make your point. Very few people are Nazis or belong to the KKK. You might as well throw in the devil. Who can be for the devil?How about arguing with real arguments like: why people want illegals deported, why people want to restrict immigration from stateless Muslim countries, why people want to build a wall, why people don't want statues torn down.How would you feel if you were jailed, fired from your job and blacklisted because of your beliefs?Typical communist.
I'm pretty sure that saying "I am not advocating the government hand out consequences for such behavior" indicates that this poster does not support jailing people for their beliefs...
You clearly don't understand probability and statistics. Take a class. It will open your eyes.After that, you can examine Silver's methodology here. This is public though I don't think he has released the source code:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
itsbaddude wrote:
This is what happens in communists countries such as Cuba. Yes, you can speak freely, but you may wind up a political prisoner.
It's not the comunisim.
The issue is when the country is authoritarian or a straight dictatorship.
You can't have one person in power for 50 years.
North Korea also is an authoritarian government
Oh yea, I forgot. The leftist here, *** that read dictionary definitions ***, believe that communism has never been practiced correctly, and if it was, it would be utopia.
L L wrote:
itsbaddude wrote:This is what happens in communists countries such as Cuba. Yes, you can speak freely, but you may wind up a political prisoner.
It's not the comunisim.
The issue is when the country is authoritarian or a straight dictatorship.
You can't have one person in power for 50 years.
North Korea also is an authoritarian government
Did mommy take away your allowance white boy😂
It is hillarious how you Lilly white weaklings act like you have some kind of authority over non-whites😆
We The People laugh at you racist Nazi fcks.
Please keep demanding $hit from people you puny fck😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The only thing you are "entitled" is an a$$ whooping which I would gladly give you if you ever set foot outside of mommies basement😎🇺🇸
I bet sunlight hasn't hit your Lilly white skin in a decade😆