Poll

Will Trump get re-elected in 2020?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD  (Read 2228938 times)

i have an issue with extremely extreme's image post in that for the most part, it takes things out of context. one example i looked into was the "90% tax rate" from bernie sanders - it ignores the context that he specifically mentioned that the highest marginal tax rate would be 90%, not the universal tax rate. it also ignores the explanation politifact gives for assigning that truth rating.

i could go on but its probably not worth my time. I'd support Annoying Orange/Annoying Orange supporters if they didn't consistently take things out of context or dismiss the opposing views when it comes to arguing back. this is pretty evident by how often images like the one extremely extreme posted are touted as facts that politifact/clinton/whatever is forgeted up and extremely liberally biased. i can agree with beachbum's news posting, just not this circlejerking that seems to be endemic among the Annoying Orange supporters online.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 07:01:41 PM by Conan »

i have an issue with extremely extreme's image post in that for the most part, it takes things out of context. one example i looked into was the "90% tax rate" from bernie sanders - it ignores the context that he specifically mentioned that the highest marginal tax rate would be 90%, not the universal tax rate. it also ignores the explanation politifact gives for assigning that truth rating.

i could go on but its probably not worth my time. I'd support Annoying Orange/Annoying Orange supporters if they didn't consistently take things out of context or dismiss the opposing views when it comes to arguing back. this is pretty evident by how often images like the one extremely extreme posted are touted as facts that politifact/clinton/whatever is forgeted up and extremely liberally biased. i can agree with beachbum's news posting, just not this circlejerking that seems to be endemic among the Annoying Orange supporters online.
a lot of that stuff is generated through bogus facebook "news" outlets that i imagine must try really hard to intentionally misrepresent information to be as infuriating as possible and circulate it to their millions of followers who will angrily share it without checking its validity

like it happens way too often for all sorts of things, and politics is just a really easy subject matter because people are already mad about it


Before you go crazy about it being a breitfart article actually read the whole thing first http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/10/11/wikileaks-clinton-bragged-putin-taking-private-inner-sanctum/
the full excerpt the article is talking about

Quote
Hillary Clinton Said One Time She Visited Putin And Bonded With Him Over Protecting
The Habitat Of Tigers. “One time, I was visiting with him in his dacha outside of Moscow, and
he was going on and on, you know, just listing all of the problems that he thinks are caused by
the United States. And I said, ‘Well, you know, Mr.’—at that time, he was still prime minister. I
said, ‘You know, Mr. Prime Minister, we actually have some things in common. We both want to
protect wildlife, and I know how committed you are to protecting the tiger.’ I mean, all of a
sudden, he sat up straight and his eyes got big and he goes, ‘You care about the tiger? I said, ‘I
care about the tiger, I care about the elephant, I care about the rhinoceros, I care about the
whale. I mean, yeah, I think we have a duty. You know, it’s an obligation that we as human
beings have to protect God’s creation.’ He goes, ‘Come with me.’ So we go down the
stairs, we go down this long hall, we go into this private inner sanctum. All of his, you know,
very beefy security guys are there, they all jump up at attention, you know, they punch a code,
he goes through a heavily-armed door. And then we’re in an inner, inner sanctum with, you
know, just this long, wooden table, and then further back, there’s a desk and the biggest map of
Russia I ever saw. And he starts talking to me about, you know, the habitat of the tigers
and the habitat of the seals and the whales. And it was quite something.” [Jewish United Fund
Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]

i don't see what the Big Dealo is

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-Annoying Orange/

An interesting read about why Annoying Orange's poll results are the way they are.

the headline of the breitfart article and the summary otto san posted is exactly why so many people stereotype Annoying Orange supporters as people who don't use reason or understand the concept of context.

like, what is she supposed to do in that circumstance? is it really implicit that she supports Russia's acts in east europe? all these articles i see bashing clinton all try to imply something rather than give outright proof that the thing being implied is actually the case. im sure there are exceptions, but nobody seems to ever post or talk about them and rather focus on the meatier implications of clinton murdering people or something.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-Annoying Orange/

An interesting read about why Annoying Orange's poll results are the way they are.
there's actually always an ideological gender gap




though the polls in the article you posted seem to show a marginally wider gap than the past several elections, it's nothing too unusual

marginally seems an understatement - it said a full 10 points??

though the polls in the article you posted seem to show a marginally wider gap than the past several elections, it's nothing too unusual
I don't know if I'd characterize double the disparity as 'marginally wider', but that is interesting that women swing left more often.

marginally seems an understatement - it said a full 10 points??
I don't know if I'd characterize double the disparity as 'marginally wider', but that is interesting that women swing left more often.


this is what i'm referring to, the average gender gap here is 20%

the 2012 election polls they have in the article show a 15% gap on average, tho my source gave a gap of 18%

well I'm glad the 19th amendment exists

well I'm glad the 19th amendment exists

Why because women support your political ideology?

Why because women support your political ideology?
or because if only men voted that would be horribly unrepresentative considering literally around half of the population trends toward the opposite candidate in general



also another interesting thing is that women are generally more likely to vote
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 11:09:14 PM by otto-san »

First after-debate polls are starting to come out, and it's looking like Annoying Orange is in a worse place than before. Although that probably has more to do with the tape scandal than his debate performance, tbh.

I saw a poll showing that Hillary lost 7 points from that debate, with Annoying Orange losing as well, but ending up where he was before the hot mic thing.  I'll have to see if i can find it, but I firmly believe these polls are cooked, and for them to show Clinton dropping by 7 points must mean something big.

If Annoying Orange is as weak as everyone seems to think, wouldn't they just shut up and let him go on to lose in November? Instead they're firing on all cylinders at him to try to sink him. It doesn't add up.