(01-15-2018 07:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

Blind link to fake news 538

Didn't click, don't care. Blind links are a chumps game.

Yup, why do you want to see an extensive listing of legitimate polls including Rasmussen and Gallup with a composite score based on them all?

Did you just say legitimate polls?

(01-15-2018 08:47 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 08:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Back to the OT. So the 2% of the African American female vote that went to Roy Moore is a doubling of the African American female vote that Trump got in 2016?

I don't give these numbers much cred. All I know is if African American's are better off financially in 3 years?...They will quietly hold their noses and vote for Trump. You know it..and I know it. If Trumps plan is simply to follow the James Carville gameplan? He wins biggly.

We the African-American delegation says F*** nawl.

The Obama Administration made a wonderful economy that has continued growing after his term.

Amend the Constitution and let us vote for him again.

(01-15-2018 09:00 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 08:47 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 08:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Back to the OT. So the 2% of the African American female vote that went to Roy Moore is a doubling of the African American female vote that Trump got in 2016?

I don't give these numbers much cred. All I know is if African American's are better off financially in 3 years?...They will quietly hold their noses and vote for Trump. You know it..and I know it. If Trumps plan is simply to follow the James Carville gameplan? He wins biggly.

We the African-American delegation says F*** nawl.

The Obama Administration made a wonderful economy that has continued growing after his term.

Amend the Constitution and let us vote for him again.

A wonderful economy? Please cite your sources.

And the Constitution was amended to limit terms for a reason. If it were to be amended again it should be to limit terms for Senators.

(01-15-2018 09:00 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 08:47 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 08:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Back to the OT. So the 2% of the African American female vote that went to Roy Moore is a doubling of the African American female vote that Trump got in 2016?

I don't give these numbers much cred. All I know is if African American's are better off financially in 3 years?...They will quietly hold their noses and vote for Trump. You know it..and I know it. If Trumps plan is simply to follow the James Carville gameplan? He wins biggly.

We the African-American delegation says F*** nawl.

The Obama Administration made a wonderful economy that has continued growing after his term.

Amend the Constitution and let us vote for him again.

No way in hell would I agree with you on this..but...It matters not who is responsible for the economy at election time. The one in office gets the credit. You will vote with your stomach..like everyone else. You just wont admit it. No shame...Ive done the same thing.

The African American delegation? How many Americans from Africa are there in that delegation?
I'll never understand the use of the term "African American."
If there's an American actually from Africa, then absolutely. Anyone else is simply an American who happens to be black. Nothing wrong with that at all.

(01-15-2018 09:27 PM)450bench Wrote:  The African American delegation? How many Americans from Africa are there in that delegation?
I'll never understand the use of the term "African American."
If there's an American actually from Africa, then absolutely. Anyone else is simply an American who happens to be black. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Does the term African American bother you? American citizens who can actually trace their ancestry to a particular country in Africa, can and usually do use their nation of heritage as a moniker, such as Nigerian American or Sengalese, etc. Just like Anglos frequently describe themselves as being Irish-American or Italian, etc. Blacks who do not know their particular ancestral home, simply use Africa as their origin point. Seems reasonable to me.

It seems to me that the demonym of "African American" is pretty uncontroversial. Is there any issue with addressing people as they would wish to be called? Seems like common courtesy to me.

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(01-15-2018 10:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 09:27 PM)450bench Wrote:  The African American delegation? How many Americans from Africa are there in that delegation?
I'll never understand the use of the term "African American."
If there's an American actually from Africa, then absolutely. Anyone else is simply an American who happens to be black. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Does the term African American bother you? American citizens who can actually trace their ancestry to a particular country in Africa, can and usually do use their nation of heritage as a moniker, such as Nigerian American or Sengalese, etc. Just like Anglos frequently describe themselves as being Irish-American or Italian, etc. Blacks who do not know their particular ancestral home, simply use Africa as their origin point. Seems reasonable to me.

It seems to me that the demonym of "African American" is pretty uncontroversial. Is there any issue with addressing people as they would wish to be called? Seems like common courtesy to me.

I'm Italian. My grandparents were from Italy, came through Ellis island and became Americans legally. The never referred to themselves as italian Americans, neither do I and no one I know does either. We are Americans who happen to be Italian.
I work with 2 African physicians who became Americans legally. They refer to themselves as Americans and scoff at the term African American if you aren't from Africa. I'm a white guy and my buddies are black guys. Americans. Period.

(01-15-2018 10:24 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 09:27 PM)450bench Wrote:  The African American delegation? How many Americans from Africa are there in that delegation?
I'll never understand the use of the term "African American."
If there's an American actually from Africa, then absolutely. Anyone else is simply an American who happens to be black. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Does the term African American bother you? American citizens who can actually trace their ancestry to a particular country in Africa, can and usually do use their nation of heritage as a moniker, such as Nigerian American or Sengalese, etc. Just like Anglos frequently describe themselves as being Irish-American or Italian, etc. Blacks who do not know their particular ancestral home, simply use Africa as their origin point. Seems reasonable to me.

It seems to me that the demonym of "African American" is pretty uncontroversial. Is there any issue with addressing people as they would wish to be called? Seems like common courtesy to me.

I'm Italian. My grandparents were from Italy, came through Ellis island and became Americans legally. The never referred to themselves as italian Americans, neither do I and no one I know does either. We are Americans who happen to be Italian.
I work with 2 African physicians who became Americans legally. They refer to themselves as Americans and scoff at the term African American if you aren't from Africa. I'm a white guy and my buddies are black guys. Americans. Period.

I know lots of Americans who refer to themselves as Italian. Oddly enough, they usually don't use Italian American. Just Italian. But its obvious that's what they mean.

Its fine if Americans wish to call themselves American. Its also fine if someone wishes to call themselves African American.

For the record, I usually only refer to myself as American unless I'm speaking with someone with the same heritage as I share. If I'm talking to another Cajun, I'll refer to myself that way (well we might not use the term Cajun....LOL)

I tend to agree with Morgan Freeman's views on the subject of race etc.

(01-15-2018 10:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...

Are you STILL not aware of what 538 actually is and what they do?

All they basically do is present the findings, slightly tweaked, of a group of polls combined together. And yes, all those polls pretty much had her as winning. And FWIW - most of trump's internal polling had about the same results. The problem was the number of voters in the polls who either lied or refused to say they would vote for trump, coupled with the persistent issues with random polling in general. Hence the margin of error. And with Hillary winning the popular vote by a small margin at or near the MOE, there's not as much here as you're trying to assert.

(01-16-2018 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...

Are you STILL not aware of what 538 actually is and what they do?

All they basically do is present the findings, slightly tweaked, of a group of polls combined together. And yes, all those polls pretty much had her as winning. And FWIW - most of trump's internal polling had about the same results. The problem was the number of voters in the polls who either lied or refused to say they would vote for trump, coupled with the persistent issues with random polling in general. Hence the margin of error. And with Hillary winning the popular vote by a small margin at or near the MOE, there's not as much here as you're trying to assert.

did they or did they not have Hillary winning with an 88% chance?

(01-16-2018 10:58 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...

Are you STILL not aware of what 538 actually is and what they do?

All they basically do is present the findings, slightly tweaked, of a group of polls combined together. And yes, all those polls pretty much had her as winning. And FWIW - most of trump's internal polling had about the same results. The problem was the number of voters in the polls who either lied or refused to say they would vote for trump, coupled with the persistent issues with random polling in general. Hence the margin of error. And with Hillary winning the popular vote by a small margin at or near the MOE, there's not as much here as you're trying to assert.

did they or did they not have Hillary winning with an 88% chance?

(01-16-2018 11:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 10:58 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...

Are you STILL not aware of what 538 actually is and what they do?

All they basically do is present the findings, slightly tweaked, of a group of polls combined together. And yes, all those polls pretty much had her as winning. And FWIW - most of trump's internal polling had about the same results. The problem was the number of voters in the polls who either lied or refused to say they would vote for trump, coupled with the persistent issues with random polling in general. Hence the margin of error. And with Hillary winning the popular vote by a small margin at or near the MOE, there's not as much here as you're trying to assert.

did they or did they not have Hillary winning with an 88% chance?

Translation: You bet your a$$ they did. but seeing as how I'm better and smarter than you, I can't and won't admit that I'm wrong.

(01-15-2018 09:27 PM)450bench Wrote:  The African American delegation? How many Americans from Africa are there in that delegation?
I'll never understand the use of the term "African American."
If there's an American actually from Africa, then absolutely. Anyone else is simply an American who happens to be black. Nothing wrong with that at all.

BTW... A person who immigrants from Africa will be actually recognized by the country they are from; you know, one of those shitholes. Why can’t I Be African-American? What the freak is your problem with me identifying as African-American rather than saying I’m black?

(01-15-2018 10:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 06:41 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  I’ll just leave this here.

The same 538 that had Hillary with an 88% chances of winning the presidency...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Actually on Election Day, it said about 60-65%. More importantly, founder Nate Silver was adamant that Trump had a chance.

Clinton received more votes by a significant margin; so national polls were on the money even if she lost the EC.

For the obtuse among us. Yes, Hillary was a favorite and predicted to win by almost any measure that was able to be used in the run up to the election. And again, even the trump internal numbers said pretty much the same thing.

538, and other places, can only use the information available to arrive at those percentages. No one has ever claimed this was any sort of exact science.

So yes, trump's chances to win were anywhere from 15% to 40% depending on who you look at. He had a small chance, and he won. I don't see what the issue is. Don't tell me that all of you knew trump was going to win 100%.

(01-16-2018 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For the obtuse among us. Yes, Hillary was a favorite and predicted to win by almost any measure that was able to be used in the run up to the election. And again, even the trump internal numbers said pretty much the same thing.

538, and other places, can only use the information available to arrive at those percentages. No one has ever claimed this was any sort of exact science.

So yes, trump's chances to win were anywhere from 15% to 40% depending on who you look at. He had a small chance, and he won. I don't see what the issue is. Don't tell me that all of you knew trump was going to win 100%.

Actually, most on the right knew that Trump would win. We kept telling y’all, but y’all kept ignoring us. Can’t help that y’all are ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(01-16-2018 12:39 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For the obtuse among us. Yes, Hillary was a favorite and predicted to win by almost any measure that was able to be used in the run up to the election. And again, even the trump internal numbers said pretty much the same thing.

538, and other places, can only use the information available to arrive at those percentages. No one has ever claimed this was any sort of exact science.

So yes, trump's chances to win were anywhere from 15% to 40% depending on who you look at. He had a small chance, and he won. I don't see what the issue is. Don't tell me that all of you knew trump was going to win 100%.

Actually, most on the right knew that Trump would win. We kept telling y’all, but y’all kept ignoring us. Can’t help that y’all are ignorant.