***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[daddy style]

Having a progressive supreme court isn't gonna magically reverse systemic racism and white privilege. At least not any time soon.
I don't think we'll see that truly dead within our lifetimes.
Many American whites have some sort of persecution complex, long before this election. The racists feel like their "white identity" is at risk due to the growing people of color population. Trump has retweeted several white supremacist pages whose profiles are filled with "white genocide" for example. They believe that the mixing of races and growing poc population is genocide against their white identity.
These types of attitudes have been brewing for a long time, Trump's rise has emboldened them so they're more out in the open now. Having a black president is what stoked the fire, Trump then threw gasoline on it.
There's a reason these type of people are drawn to Trump in an almost cult-like fashion. Rather than using the GOP's typical dog whistle tactics, Trump said **** it and swapped the whistle for a horn. The message is loud and clear to these people and they feel validated.

When I say that white priv is done, I am suggesting, and I should have been a bit more clear, is that the ball is rolling in the direction to eliminate it once Hillary makes the appointments. For me, this means it is done.

 

[Belgium]

Look at SNL rigging the election 

 

[SoleByThePound]

btw, da irony is Hillary is gonna let Wallstreet regulate itself according to wikileaks

She is not going to let Wallstreet regulate themselves, but she does believe insiders should be part of the process. While it's easy to be cynical and paint every person on Wallstreet as a crook, the truth is there will need to be individuals who know the markets inside and out included in the process of creating stronger regulations.

 

[whywesteppin]

latest poll (NBC/WSJ) has Hillary up by 11 percentage points.

it's a bloodbath.

btw, people are already voting.

 

[ronsweedroom]

PayPal confounder supports trump.

New processer has to take advantage of this

 

[deleted]

I agree with Trump about SNL

Show sucks now

 

[ninjahood]

latest poll (NBC/WSJ) has Hillary up by 11 percentage points.

it's a bloodbath.

btw, people are already voting.

there u go..cherry picking again...

*ahem*

CNN)-
Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump nationally among likely voters -- but two new polls diverge on the size of her lead.

Clinton is 11 percentage points ahead of Trump, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out Sunday.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll, meanwhile, pegs her lead at 4 points.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/

with a with a margin of error? yeah...u keep thinking what u thought

 

[whywesteppin]

what can i say, i learned from the best.

 

[Nike Jordan]

I agree with Trump about SNL

Show sucks now

He hosted SNL last season. 

 

[SoleByThePound]

I agree with Trump about SNL

Show sucks now

It's actually gotten better the last couple of seasons, it was a dumpster fire for a moment. While it's nowhere as good as it once was, I wouldn't claim that it sucks (currently).

 

[leavemeglazzies]

 
Look at SNL rigging the election 

 Dat SALT. I can imagaine him watching it with the same stoneface he had at that White House comedy roast.

 

[RustyShackleford]

latest poll (NBC/WSJ) has Hillary up by 11 percentage points.

it's a bloodbath.

btw, people are already voting.

there u go..cherry picking again...

*ahem*

CNN)-
Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump nationally among likely voters -- but two new polls diverge on the size of her lead.

Clinton is 11 percentage points ahead of Trump, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out Sunday.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll, meanwhile, pegs her lead at 4 points.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/

with a with a margin of error? yeah...u keep thinking what u thought

You do know a margin of error goes both ways right? The chances her lead is smaller and the chances her lead is bigger are the same.

It would probably be better to look at the size of the error.

More Hoodtistics

 

[ninjahood]

my point (that u seem to lose, even CNN highlights it for u) is there is volatility still.

Wednesday is gonna put new fresh set of factors in these polls, so...

 

[jape]

 

[RustyShackleford]

But your steadfast support of a man who'd willingly place you in chains

i didn't know Joe Biden was a NTer...



btw, da irony is Hillary is gonna let Wallstreet regulate itself according to wikileaks

Famb pulling out Blco's old material

And You keep changing Hillary's comments. She said someone from Wall Street might be best to regulate them because they know how they work. On the surface I have a problem with that, but it is not like it is a ridiculous comments, see Tom Wheeler.

Here is her quote:

There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.

She also said things like

“If there are issues, if there’s wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.”

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/7/13206882/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-speeches-goldman

I don't like or agree with everything she said but stop building strawmen because you're desperate.

 

[slighted]

I actually agree with Hillary in that too much and too little regulation are both bad.

I'm still on the fence about who would actually be good for the role -- Wall St. is a very small world and it wouldn't be a surprise if the top potentials are all tied to big banks.

 

[RustyShackleford]

my point (that u seem to lose, even CNN highlights it for u) is there is volatility still.

Wednesday is gonna put new fresh set of factors in these polls, so...

Your point seemed to be that you didn't understand a basic statistical concept, once again.

Dude there is no volatility. The differences in the leads is due to differences in sampling. Volatility would be if the same poll with the same sampling method showed a change in the lead within a short period of time. Comparing two polls, that are both trending in the same direction, doesn't show volatility.

Once again, basic Stats

 

[SoleByThePound]

Bill Maher said it best "Whinny Little *****".

 

[essential1]

In the last 3 days...

NBC +11
Fox +7
ABC +4

Add those 3 up... Gives you an averaged of................ 7.3%

Even if you added the +2 Trump & Tie Trump... Hillary up 4%.. Despite massive flaws in both of their polls, that anyone with a High School Grasp of Statistics could provide their polling error... I.e. Over Sampling a single vote in LA Times/USC & a ridiculous Rasmussen daily tracking poll which is a nonsense way to conduct polling. Hell even 3 day tracking is not enough time


GO back to Tuesday on General Election Polls... Reuters +7, The Atlantic +7

Seems like if you throw out the outliers of NBC, LA Times/USC & Rasmussen, you come up with Clinton up 6.25%

 

[slighted]

PayPal confounder supports trump.

New processer has to take advantage of this

How?

Thiel isn't a part of PYPL anymore.

 

[essential1]

my point (that u seem to lose, even CNN highlights it for u) is there is volatility still.

Wednesday is gonna put new fresh set of factors in these polls, so...

Your point seemed to be that you didn't understand a basic statistical concept, once again.

Dude there is no volatility. The differences in the leads is due to differences in sampling. Volatility would be if the same poll with the same sampling method showed a change in the lead within a short period of time. Comparing two polls, that are both trending in the same direction, doesn't show volatility.

Once again, basic Stats

I.e. Rasmussen going from Clinton +4 Wednesday to Trump +2 on Thursday

 

[RustyShackleford]

I actually agree with Hillary in that too much and too little regulation are both bad.

I'm still on the fence about who would actually be good for the role -- Wall St. is a very small world and it wouldn't be a surprise if the top potentials are all tied to big banks.

I actually I sort of disagree with Hillary on this point. Most regulations we put on Wall St., they will be able to beat it and still flourish.

What we really need to do is make sure than if the financial industry crashes, that they don't take the entire banking system and economy with them.

 

[RustyShackleford]

my point (that u seem to lose, even CNN highlights it for u) is there is volatility still.

Wednesday is gonna put new fresh set of factors in these polls, so...

Your point seemed to be that you didn't understand a basic statistical concept, once again.

Dude there is no volatility. The differences in the leads is due to differences in sampling. Volatility would be if the same poll with the same sampling method showed a change in the lead within a short period of time. Comparing two polls, that are both trending in the same direction, doesn't show volatility.

Once again, basic Stats

I.e. Rasmussen going from Clinton +4 Wednesday to Trump +2 on Thursday

That's probably because of a late Wednesday night campaign reboot b

 

[daddy style]

i didn't know Joe Biden was a NTer...



btw, da irony is Hillary is gonna let Wallstreet regulate itself according to wikileaks

If by some impossibilty Trump wins and then white entitlement isn't challenged by the Supreme court, how do you benefit from it? How do your ancestors feel about your position? You are "dominican", so I know you understand what it is that I am asking.

 

[ninjahood]

even if you added the +2 Trump & Tie Trump... Hillary up 4%.. Despite massive flaws in both [/B]

sounds like da race aint over by a mile, Wednesday coming up, and too many outside factors yet to reveal.