Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | | Last >
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26472205 -

Somehow the Iowa Democratic Party and the DNC have managed to DOUBLE Pete’s support in Iowa. Weird how that works.




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26472214 -

The Ecstatic said:
Somehow the Iowa Democratic Party and the DNC have managed to DOUBLE Pete’s support in Iowa. Weird how that works


I think you meant they managed to DOUBLE Pete's support after Iowa?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #26472226 -

This poll is of Iowans in Iowa after the caucus.

Before the caucus he was 10 points behind his actual results, and in this poll he’s 10 points behind his actual results.

So either all the polls massively underrepresented Pete’s support, a tenth of the electorate changed their minds in Pete’s favor and then immediately changed them back, or the results of the caucus have been manipulated in Pete’s favor.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: feldman114] * 1
    #26472227 -

feldman114 said:
The NYT doesn’t “keep getting proven wrong” though. The needle was a guess - it says so right on top of the page, for those who don’t already know that NYT can’t see into the future.

If justice prevails there will be a recount (or w.e. the backward caucus version of a recount is)


A guess, sure, but surely an educated one?

Falcon and I had an educated guess also, with our limited resources, how is it that we know the future?


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #26472231 -

The Ecstatic said:
This poll is of Iowans in Iowa after the caucus.

Before the caucus he was 10 points behind his actual results, and in this poll he’s 10 points behind his actual results.

So either all the polls massively underrepresented Pete’s support, a tenth of the electorate changed their minds in Pete’s favor and then immediately changed them back, or the results of the caucus have been manipulated in Pete’s favor.


The reason for this is that they had a second round of voting. Pete cleaned up the establishment vote, because Biden was not an option. It's not that voters supported Pete.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #26472236 -

The Ecstatic said:
This poll is of Iowans in Iowa after the caucus.


Ok, your graphic didn't say that.

Are you sure it's not a national poll though, because Biden was polling at 29% on 3 Feb and 24% today.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26472246 -

Lol no thanks. I’m have very little confidence in Petey.

See, now you’re getting your wires crossed - there’s fact and there’s opinion. Trump DID collude with Russian citizens. I don’t remember the NYT calling collusion a crime...
Fuck man. On this one, I really hope we can just agree to disagree. We’re both biased when it comes to Putin’s Russia and I’ve been kinda enjoying being able to have a civil discussion with you. I just...I think we can discuss the topic at hand without involving Russia. Agreed?

I’m sure you can find many more instances of the presumably lying, negligent NYT making false claims...right? I’m really asking - I haven’t seen any, but knowing your researching skills you might poast a page-long list for all I know lol.
If it makes any difference, I promise I keep an open mind when it comes to institutional corruption. As in, I know it’s possible in any system...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26472251 -

Bigbadwooof said:
feldman114 said:
The NYT doesn’t “keep getting proven wrong” though. The needle was a guess - it says so right on top of the page, for those who don’t already know that NYT can’t see into the future.

If justice prevails there will be a recount (or w.e. the backward caucus version of a recount is)


A guess, sure, but surely an educated one?

Falcon and I had an educated guess also, with our limited resources, how is it that we know the future?


You didn’t KNOW though. Come on now. You assumed, based on both data and emotion. This is fine for private citizens, but not journalists.
Journalists have to TRY staying objective. In this case, that meant sticking to statistics (a legitimate science), regardless of what any one journalist thinks will happen.

Can you imagine the Fox News shitstorm if NYT published a headline like “Bernie Will Win Iowa”?? They’d pounce like the hyenas they are... it’s not all cut and dry.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: The Ecstatic] * 2
    #26472262 -

I saw an awful lot of rounding errors over the last few days

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: ballsalsa] * 4
    #26472269 -

On the topic of the thread, I'll tell you, if you asked me 3 years ago, I would have said you were insane if you thought I would ever consider supporting Sanders for the nomination; But I have to say, after watching all the democratic debates, listening to stump speeches, and trying to get to know all the candidates, I am really starting to change my position on Sanders. The more I hear him talk, the more I really like him and am really starting to lean toward supporting him over the others.

Before the last debate, I was in the midst of a dilemma to throw my support behind either Klobuchar or Buttigieg.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: feldman114]
    #26472309 -

feldman114 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I'm still so confident that you're going to lose your bet on the NY Times, that I'm willing to up the stakes from 3 months to 6 months if you want.  You should consider it; after all the NY Times still says you still have a 46% chance of winning.


Lol no thanks. I’m have very little confidence in Petey.


But you still have confidence in the NY Times percentage of 46%, right?  Since I'm slightly favored to win now, I'll add 3 months to my signature if I lose (total of 6 months), and you only add one month if I win (total of 4 months).  I'm giving you better odds (3 to 1) than the current NY Times difference (1.17 to 1).

feldman114 said:
See, now you’re getting your wires crossed - there’s fact and there’s opinion. Trump DID collude with Russian citizens. I don’t remember the NYT calling collusion a crime...
Fuck man. On this one, I really hope we can just agree to disagree. We’re both biased when it comes to Putin’s Russia and I’ve been kinda enjoying being able to have a civil discussion with you. I just...I think we can discuss the topic at hand without involving Russia. Agreed?


I'll just cite this quote from Wikipedia:  "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign 'coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities'".

Moving away from Trump-Russia collusion, however, the Mueller Report DID say that Russia interfered in our elections, and cited Yevgeny Prigozhin and his 'troll farm' Concord Consulting as evidence.  As I told you before, Concord is calling bullshit and is taking this to court, and the trial starts in April.  The New York Times fully supports this narrative.  Are you willing to take my signature bet on that?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26472321 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
feldman114 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I'm still so confident that you're going to lose your bet on the NY Times, that I'm willing to up the stakes from 3 months to 6 months if you want.  You should consider it; after all the NY Times still says you still have a 46% chance of winning.


Lol no thanks. I’m have very little confidence in Petey.


But you still have confidence in the NY Times percentage of 46%, right?  Since I'm slightly favored to win now, I'll add 3 months to my signature if I lose (total of 6 months), and you only add one month if I win (total of 4 months).  I'm giving you better odds (3 to 1) than the current NY Times difference (1.17 to 1).

feldman114 said:
See, now you’re getting your wires crossed - there’s fact and there’s opinion. Trump DID collude with Russian citizens. I don’t remember the NYT calling collusion a crime...
Fuck man. On this one, I really hope we can just agree to disagree. We’re both biased when it comes to Putin’s Russia and I’ve been kinda enjoying being able to have a civil discussion with you. I just...I think we can discuss the topic at hand without involving Russia. Agreed?


I'll just cite this quote from Wikipedia:  "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign 'coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities'".

Moving away from Trump-Russia collusion, however, the Mueller Report DID say that Russia interfered in our elections, and cited Yevgeny Prigozhin and his 'troll farm' Concord Consulting as evidence.  As I told you before, Concord is calling bullshit and is taking this to court, and the trial starts in April.  The New York Times fully supports this narrative.  Are you willing to take my signature bet on that?


I’m just gonna skip the Russia stuf for aforementioned reasons...

Naw I’m good with 3 months lol. Pete was leading by a larger margin yesterday, why would I double down? Mama ain’t raise no fool

And yes!!! I do believe there’s statistically a 46% chance of me winning now. See - the data changed, and I accept the new data. Now imagine, just imagine Pete does win - will you say you were wrong, or just use it as an example of “rigged” elections because you “know” Bernie should have won?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26472325 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Moving away from Trump-Russia collusion, however, the Mueller Report DID say that Russia interfered in our elections, and cited Yevgeny Prigozhin and his 'troll farm' Concord Consulting as evidence.  As I told you before, Concord is calling bullshit and is taking this to court, and the trial starts in April.  The New York Times fully supports this narrative.  Are you willing to take my signature bet on that?



You want to know what I believe is the truly disturbing part of this facet of the discussion? Not whether or not collusion was proved or even demonstrated with at least a modicum of evidence. Even though I believe Trump was guilty as sin of collusion with a foreign government to interfere with the 2016 election, the truly terrifying thing to me is not his innocence, guilt, or perhaps gullibility as Putin's hapless asset. No, none of this. What is scary is that even if he is completely innocent, he is also our Commander In Chief.

ANY other President, including ones I didn't like, would have been livid at the obvious evidence that Putin and Russia did interfere with our election(s). How can this NOT be acknowledged by people on the right? If he was so innocent, then why the hell wasn't he up in arms (as an innocent man would be!) when presented with evidence of Russian spying and interfering?

On the cyber level, wasn't what Russia did an act of war? If you think I am speaking in hyperbole, then fine. But how is it that our own Commander in Chief could not even find the temerity to bring the full weight of United States reprisals, at least in the form of sanctions of some sort, against Russia?

Edited by LSA Woodrose (02/06/20 04:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: feldman114]
    #26472342 -

feldman114 said:
yes!!! I do believe there’s statistically a 46% chance of me winning now. See - the data changed, and I accept the new data. Now imagine, just imagine Pete does win - will you say you were wrong, or just use it as an example of “rigged” elections because you “know” Bernie should have won?


Of course I'll say I was wrong, and so will my signature.  But I'm still highly confident given my odds already went from 1.5% to 54% (which I believe is just as fake as the 1.5%).


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: feldman114]
    #26472348 -

feldman114 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Moving away from Trump-Russia collusion, however, the Mueller Report DID say that Russia interfered in our elections, and cited Yevgeny Prigozhin and his 'troll farm' Concord Consulting as evidence.  As I told you before, Concord is calling bullshit and is taking this to court, and the trial starts in April.  The New York Times fully supports this narrative.  Are you willing to take my signature bet on that?


I’m just gonna skip the Russia stuf for aforementioned reasons...


Your aforementioned reasons were "We’re both biased when it comes to Putin’s Russia and I’ve been kinda enjoying being able to have a civil discussion with you."

I agree with you and I feel the same.

But we DON'T have to argue about anything; we just have to wait for a final decision.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26472397 -



This bitch gets a

:thatsaten::justastonishing:


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: LSA Woodrose] * 1
    #26472405 -

LSA Woodrose said:
On the topic of the thread, I'll tell you, if you asked me 3 years ago, I would have said you were insane if you thought I would ever consider supporting Sanders for the nomination; But I have to say, after watching all the democratic debates, listening to stump speeches, and trying to get to know all the candidates, I am really starting to change my position on Sanders. The more I hear him talk, the more I really like him and am really starting to lean toward supporting him over the others.

Before the last debate, I was in the midst of a dilemma to throw my support behind either Klobuchar or Buttigieg.


Well, if you do decide to join us, on behalf of the Shroomery political subforum, we commend you, good sir!

:toast:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26472428 -

So is there an official winner yet of the Iowa caucus?


--------------------
Check out my generic dating app I made :rockon: :mushroom2:    I make some music

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: lifeiswhatyoumake] * 2
    #26472433 -

lifeiswhatyoumake said:
So is there an official winner yet of the Iowa caucus?


I believe Bernie has officially won the Iowa caucus. If you look at state delegates (which has no bearing on the federal election, and is basically useless information), Buttigieg may have won, I'm not sure. Bernie and Pete both have been awarded the same number of national delegates so far (11), though Bernie has 6,000 more votes, last I checked. I believe Bernie is going to receive more delegates, but the DNC called for another recount, because they are trying to preserve the propaganda, that Pete won.

By the way, they are doing all this recounting, and ballot checking, and a very large number of the results submitted to the public have been incorrect entirely. They are committing fraud, flat out.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Sanders - Woooflestiltskin 2020 [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26472436 -

Bigbadwooof said:


This bitch gets a

:thatsaten::justastonishing:


She's good.  :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | | Last >

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Poll: 20% of White Democrats Vote McCain If Obama Is The Nominee lonestar2004 1,554 16 03/01/08 01:49 AM
by KillerPicklez
* Super Tuesday: Democrats outpolled Reps by 6 million. blackegg 1,340 13 02/29/08 02:04 AM
by fireworks_god
* TRUMP 2024
( 1 2 3 4 ... 2060 2061 )		 XUL 461,325 41,203 08/07/26 10:44 AM
by pugster
* Notice To Incumbent Democrats Up For Reelection In 2014:
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 starfire_xes 5,278 174 11/22/13 07:32 PM
by zappaisgod
* Are Democrats Creeping Into Contention? lonestar2004 1,674 2 06/22/05 10:24 PM
by Ravus
* Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Phred 8,259 97 10/17/08 01:18 AM
by riceandpeas
* Senate Democrats say their rookies strayed on FISA discombobulate 513 2 08/09/07 04:37 AM
by Seuss
* Democrats Panick Over Obuma's New Power Plant Regulations
( 1 2 3 all )		 Stonehenge 2,542 56 06/16/14 04:18 PM
by Luddite

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
86,132 topic views. 5 members, 552 guests and 24 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.