Donk Convention

[JohnStOnge]

I think the data collected by the grad students from Stanford and the Dutch university stands on its own: In eighteen states with voting paper trail Sanders wins 51/49. In I think it was thirteen states without a paper trail Clinton wins 65/35.

Crooked as a dogs hind leg.

That does not do it. As I wrote earlier: What happened in the Democratic primaries was very consistent with what polling previous to elections predicted. And in cases where the polling predictions were wrong Sanders won. Any reasonable assessment of the situation leads to the conclusion that Clinton won more delegates during the primaries because she had more support.

[BDKJMU]

BTW, I don't see it discussed so I'll ask you guys to respond to the below. As you know, I have been pretty anti Muslim myself. But just look at this video, which I think is pretty darned powerful, and give your thoughts:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkkk-oJ6bo[/youtube]

I personally think he skewered Trump pretty good. The more people who see that, the worse for Trump.

I think he stole the and that he is 100% correct.

Stole the ???

[UNI88]

I think the data collected by the grad students from Stanford and the Dutch university stands on its own: In eighteen states with voting paper trail Sanders wins 51/49. In I think it was thirteen states without a paper trail Clinton wins 65/35.

Crooked as a dogs hind leg.

That does not do it. As I wrote earlier: What happened in the Democratic primaries was very consistent with what polling previous to elections predicted. And in cases where the polling predictions were wrong Sanders won. Any reasonable assessment of the situation leads to the conclusion that Clinton won more delegates during the primaries because she had more support.

So you require concrete and overt proof that Hillary and the DNC rigged the primaries? You really should hold yourself to the same standard so please provide the exact same proof that Trump is insane (i.e. a clinical diagnosis from a licensed psychiatrist who has come to that diagnosis through not just observation but testing and any other procedures necessary to confirm the diagnosis with absolute certainty).

[Bronco]

-
Racist sign at Prog Convention

[houndawg]

I think he stole the and that he is 100% correct.

Stole the ???

oops.. stole the show.

[Baldy]

-
Racist sign at Prog Convention

[kalm]

Search "rigged" in the poli board at CS. Or violent Bernie supporters Nevada caucus for starters. From there go to Arizona and RI primary voting places...

It's not a secret, John. You are just a slave to establishment media and hang on their every word.

No, Kalm. YOU describe a process by which any primary was "rigged." The fact that Bernie Sanders supporters may think something was "rigged" doesn't do it.

It's fair for someone to ask you to back up something like that. And saying, "you look it up yourself" doesn't do it.

[rig]
verb (used with object), rigged, rigging.
4. to manipulate fraudulently

Yes, John, I agree. Rigged is a somewhat vague term, difficult to quantify.

But since you're into evidence and virtually no one agrees with you on this one, why don't you provide some evidence of how this primary was no more rigged than "any" other?

Remember all of the commotion from the Hillary folks back in 2008 about how the DNC and establishment media were colluding to hand Obama the nomination?

Or the same in 2012 with the Republican process?

[Ibanez]

No, Kalm. YOU describe a process by which any primary was "rigged." The fact that Bernie Sanders supporters may think something was "rigged" doesn't do it.

It's fair for someone to ask you to back up something like that. And saying, "you look it up yourself" doesn't do it.

[rig]
verb (used with object), rigged, rigging.
4. to manipulate fraudulently

Yes, John, I agree. Rigged is a somewhat vague term, difficult to quantify.

But since you're into evidence and virtually no one agrees with you on this one, why don't you provide some evidence of how this primary was no more rigged than "any" other?

Remember all of the commotion from the Hillary folks back in 2008 about how the DNC and establishment media were colluding to hand Obama the nomination?

Or the same in 2012 with the Republican process?

Easy. In 2011 Tim Kaine stepped down as head of the DNC, Clinton campaign co-chair DWS becomes head of the DNC. Fast forward to 2016, DSW assures that the DNC will undermine any Democratic candidate not named Clinton and Tim Kaine becomes nominee for VP.



Duh.


Spandos will be by shortly with a 4 hr YouTube video to convince you.

[Pwns]

Found this on snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-pr ... repancies/

The authors did a multivariate regression analysis adjusting for how heavily Democrat-leaning each state was and the percentage of whites in each state and the results showed Clinton still did significantly better in states with no paper trail.

Honestly, I got nothing. That is a little strange and eerie. That's a much stronger case than just saying "the results don't match the exit polls" like the theory some donks pushed in 2004 in Ohio.

[CAA Flagship]

So you're enjoying St. Louis?

No

[JohnStOnge]

That does not do it. As I wrote earlier: What happened in the Democratic primaries was very consistent with what polling previous to elections predicted. And in cases where the polling predictions were wrong Sanders won. Any reasonable assessment of the situation leads to the conclusion that Clinton won more delegates during the primaries because she had more support.

So you require concrete and overt proof that Hillary and the DNC rigged the primaries? You really should hold yourself to the same standard so please provide the exact same proof that Trump is insane (i.e. a clinical diagnosis from a licensed psychiatrist who has come to that diagnosis through not just observation but testing and any other procedures necessary to confirm the diagnosis with absolute certainty).

See the thread I started on this issue. I do look at evidence for such things. There is no suggestion in the data that the Democratic Primaries were rigged. It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton just had, for better or for worse, more popular support. The only times anything that seemed "funny" happened in terms of what the polls were predicting vs. what transpired were times when Sanders won in spite of the polls suggesting he was going to lose. There's just no "there" there with this paranoia.

HIllary also had a comfortable lead throughout in polling of Democratic Primary voters overall. Not overwhelming, but comfortable. Usually around 55 to 45%. Bernie never was the favorite of the majority of Democratic primary voters. The candidate most Democratic primary voters and caucus participants wanted to win won.

[UNI88]

So you require concrete and overt proof that Hillary and the DNC rigged the primaries? You really should hold yourself to the same standard so please provide the exact same proof that Trump is insane (i.e. a clinical diagnosis from a licensed psychiatrist who has come to that diagnosis through not just observation but testing and any other procedures necessary to confirm the diagnosis with absolute certainty).

See the thread I started on this issue. I do look at evidence for such things. There is no suggestion in the data that the Democratic Primaries were rigged. It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton just had, for better or for worse, more popular support. The only times anything that seemed "funny" happened in terms of what the polls were predicting vs. what transpired were times when Sanders won in spite of the polls suggesting he was going to lose. There's just no "there" there with this paranoia.

HIllary also had a comfortable lead throughout in polling of Democratic Primary voters overall. Not overwhelming, but comfortable. Usually around 55 to 45%. Bernie never was the favorite of the majority of Democratic primary voters. The candidate most Democratic primary voters and caucus participants wanted to win won.

John, don't be obtuse. You completely avoided the question that I posed. I believe you're correct that there is no concrete evidence that Hillary and/or the DNC rigged primaries but there is anecdotal evidence. There is also no concrete evidence that Trump is insane or has a mental illness but there is anecdotal evidence. Why are you unwilling to accept the anecdotal evidence in the first instance but willing to accept it as gospel in the second?

You have an annoying habit of requiring scientific proof of anyone who disagrees with your perspective but a willingness to accept less stringent evidence to demonstrate the "truth" of your beliefs.

[YoUDeeMan]

[JSO] You have an annoying habit of requiring scientific proof of anyone who disagrees with your perspective but a willingness to accept less stringent evidence to demonstrate the "truth" of your beliefs.

FACT!

JSO's credibility has sunk to new lows lately.

Facts be damned...or facts be twisted...is JSO's new mantra.

The fact is that Hillary has decided to kill many minorities in several countries that despise minorities...yet Hillary says she has always stood by minorities (a statement that has been proven multiple times to be factually incorrect). Gays, Blacks, Muslins....Hillary is on record as not supporting them, but she keeps lying about that...in fact she has helped jail and kill more minorities than almost any other American president.

But hey, that doesn't matter in JSO's world.

[CAA Flagship]

So you require concrete and overt proof that Hillary and the DNC rigged the primaries? You really should hold yourself to the same standard so please provide the exact same proof that Trump is insane (i.e. a clinical diagnosis from a licensed psychiatrist who has come to that diagnosis through not just observation but testing and any other procedures necessary to confirm the diagnosis with absolute certainty).

See the thread I started on this issue. I do look at evidence for such things. There is no suggestion in the data that the Democratic Primaries were rigged. It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton just had, for better or for worse, more popular support. The only times anything that seemed "funny" happened in terms of what the polls were predicting vs. what transpired were times when Sanders won in spite of the polls suggesting he was going to lose. There's just no "there" there with this paranoia.

HIllary also had a comfortable lead throughout in polling of Democratic Primary voters overall. Not overwhelming, but comfortable. Usually around 55 to 45%. Bernie never was the favorite of the majority of Democratic primary voters. The candidate most Democratic primary voters and caucus participants wanted to win won.

[kalm]

See the thread I started on this issue. I do look at evidence for such things. There is no suggestion in the data that the Democratic Primaries were rigged. It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton just had, for better or for worse, more popular support. The only times anything that seemed "funny" happened in terms of what the polls were predicting vs. what transpired were times when Sanders won in spite of the polls suggesting he was going to lose. There's just no "there" there with this paranoia.

HIllary also had a comfortable lead throughout in polling of Democratic Primary voters overall. Not overwhelming, but comfortable. Usually around 55 to 45%. Bernie never was the favorite of the majority of Democratic primary voters. The candidate most Democratic primary voters and caucus participants wanted to win won.

[Baldy]

Yeah I 'd too.

John, you're gonna need to be a little more specific.

[houndawg]

[JSO] You have an annoying habit of requiring scientific proof of anyone who disagrees with your perspective but a willingness to accept less stringent evidence to demonstrate the "truth" of your beliefs.

FACT!

JSO's credibility has sunk to new lows lately.

Facts be damned...or facts be twisted...is JSO's new mantra.

The fact is that Hillary has decided to kill many minorities in several countries that despise minorities...yet Hillary says she has always stood by minorities (a statement that has been proven multiple times to be factually incorrect). Gays, Blacks, Muslins....Hillary is on record as not supporting them, but she keeps lying about that...in fact she has helped jail and kill more minorities than almost any other American president.

But hey, that doesn't matter in JSO's world.

And she isn't even President yet!

[Chizzang]

[houndawg]

See the thread I started on this issue. I do look at evidence for such things. There is no suggestion in the data that the Democratic Primaries were rigged. It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton just had, for better or for worse, more popular support. The only times anything that seemed "funny" happened in terms of what the polls were predicting vs. what transpired were times when Sanders won in spite of the polls suggesting he was going to lose. There's just no "there" there with this paranoia.

HIllary also had a comfortable lead throughout in polling of Democratic Primary voters overall. Not overwhelming, but comfortable. Usually around 55 to 45%. Bernie never was the favorite of the majority of Democratic primary voters. The candidate most Democratic primary voters and caucus participants wanted to win won.

John, don't be obtuse. You completely avoided the question that I posed. I believe you're correct that there is no concrete evidence that Hillary and/or the DNC rigged primaries but there is anecdotal evidence. There is also no concrete evidence that Trump is insane or has a mental illness but there is anecdotal evidence. Why are you unwilling to accept the anecdotal evidence in the first instance but willing to accept it as gospel in the second?

You have an annoying habit of requiring scientific proof of anyone who disagrees with your perspective but a willingness to accept less stringent evidence to demonstrate the "truth" of your beliefs.

Whatever they may be today...

[Gil Dobie]

The Donk convention was very positive, very progressive didn't go negative on Trump. America will prosper and have it's own Victorian era. Even JSO sees the light in the current Clintonian Era.

[SDHornet]

The Donk convention was very positive, very progressive didn't go negative on Trump. America will prosper and have it's own Victorian era. Even JSO sees the light in the current Clintonian Era.

[BDKJMU]

The Donk convention was very positive, very progressive didn't go negative on Trump. America will prosper and have it's own Victorian era. Even JSO sees the light in the current Clintonian Era.

[JohnStOnge]

See the thread I started on this issue. I do look at evidence for such things. There is no suggestion in the data that the Democratic Primaries were rigged. It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton just had, for better or for worse, more popular support. The only times anything that seemed "funny" happened in terms of what the polls were predicting vs. what transpired were times when Sanders won in spite of the polls suggesting he was going to lose. There's just no "there" there with this paranoia.

HIllary also had a comfortable lead throughout in polling of Democratic Primary voters overall. Not overwhelming, but comfortable. Usually around 55 to 45%. Bernie never was the favorite of the majority of Democratic primary voters. The candidate most Democratic primary voters and caucus participants wanted to win won.

John, don't be obtuse. You completely avoided the question that I posed. I believe you're correct that there is no concrete evidence that Hillary and/or the DNC rigged primaries but there is anecdotal evidence. There is also no concrete evidence that Trump is insane or has a mental illness but there is anecdotal evidence. Why are you unwilling to accept the anecdotal evidence in the first instance but willing to accept it as gospel in the second?

You have an annoying habit of requiring scientific proof of anyone who disagrees with your perspective but a willingness to accept less stringent evidence to demonstrate the "truth" of your beliefs.

The polling data provide an independent assessment of voter sentiment. There may be what people call anecdotal evidence about the primaries being rigged but there are some pretty substantial survey data to suggest that they were not. The results of the actual voting were consistent with the results of the polling. In the only two cases in which they were not, Sanders was the beneficiary. In other words: There are hard data to contradict the idea that the democratic primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton.

There are no hard data to contradict the idea that Donald Trump is nuts. In fact the nature of psychiatry/psychology is such that I don't even know that such a thing is possible. I did find an article written by a psychologist in which she listed out the symptoms of childish behavior in an adult and made a pretty compelling case for the idea that Trump displays those symptoms. But I don't know if there is ever a really high level of certainty associated with mental illness diagnosis. It's not like testing someone's blood and finding malaria parasites and saying they have malaria. I think there is unavoidably a certain level of opinion associated with it. You either have malaria or you don't and there's a definite black and white way to tell. I don't think mental illness diagnosis is like that.

[kalm]

John, don't be obtuse. You completely avoided the question that I posed. I believe you're correct that there is no concrete evidence that Hillary and/or the DNC rigged primaries but there is anecdotal evidence. There is also no concrete evidence that Trump is insane or has a mental illness but there is anecdotal evidence. Why are you unwilling to accept the anecdotal evidence in the first instance but willing to accept it as gospel in the second?

You have an annoying habit of requiring scientific proof of anyone who disagrees with your perspective but a willingness to accept less stringent evidence to demonstrate the "truth" of your beliefs.

The polling data provide an independent assessment of voter sentiment. There may be what people call anecdotal evidence about the primaries being rigged but there are some pretty substantial survey data to suggest that they were not. The results of the actual voting were consistent with the results of the polling. In the only two cases in which they were not, Sanders was the beneficiary. In other words: There are hard data to contradict the idea that the democratic primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton.

There are no hard data to contradict the idea that Donald Trump is nuts. In fact the nature of psychiatry/psychology is such that I don't even know that such a thing is possible. I did find an article written by a psychologist in which she listed out the symptoms of childish behavior in an adult and made a pretty compelling case for the idea that Trump displays those symptoms. But I don't know if there is ever a really high level of certainty associated with mental illness diagnosis. It's not like testing someone's blood and finding malaria parasites and saying they have malaria. I think there is unavoidably a certain level of opinion associated with it. You either have malaria or you don't and there's a definite black and white way to tell. I don't think mental illness diagnosis is like that.

Of course it wasn't rigged...because the person 70 points in the lead to start with, won!



Read 8 and 9...but there's just tons of evidence out there. It's truly silly for you to keep arguing otherwise.

Clever trolling or more willful ignorance?
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways ... t_partner/

[houndawg]

The polling data provide an independent assessment of voter sentiment. There may be what people call anecdotal evidence about the primaries being rigged but there are some pretty substantial survey data to suggest that they were not. The results of the actual voting were consistent with the results of the polling. In the only two cases in which they were not, Sanders was the beneficiary. In other words: There are hard data to contradict the idea that the democratic primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton.

There are no hard data to contradict the idea that Donald Trump is nuts. In fact the nature of psychiatry/psychology is such that I don't even know that such a thing is possible. I did find an article written by a psychologist in which she listed out the symptoms of childish behavior in an adult and made a pretty compelling case for the idea that Trump displays those symptoms. But I don't know if there is ever a really high level of certainty associated with mental illness diagnosis. It's not like testing someone's blood and finding malaria parasites and saying they have malaria. I think there is unavoidably a certain level of opinion associated with it. You either have malaria or you don't and there's a definite black and white way to tell. I don't think mental illness diagnosis is like that.

Of course it wasn't rigged...because the person 70 points in the lead to start with, won!



Read 8 and 9...but there's just tons of evidence out there. It's truly silly for you to keep arguing otherwise.

Clever trolling or more willful ignorance?
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways ... t_partner/

Mostly just trolling from our Johnny anymore, he appears to have abandoned all pretense at clever about the time the primaries started.