What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (6 Viewers)

Snorkelson said:
I’m certain there are other fantasy football message boards you can post on that cater to free speech, regardless of bigotry or false content, and where you can pretty much call anyone any names you want. You can even start a thread to piss and moan about how unfair it is here and how overrun with liberals it has become. 
Posts like this are a huge part of the problem here.     Not a good look at all..come on man be better or this board is probably not for you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I already apologized. As I said in the post, I should have locked the other thread long ago. 
Sounds a lot like Twitter's excuse when they're caught in hypocrisy.

How about stopping censorship altogether then no need to apologize?

 
I've been monitoring a betting site (because I'm sick) and Iowa has been firmly in Trump's territory for quite some time.   :shrug:  
The magnitude of Trump’s advantage and quality of the pollster is what makes that poll notable. States aren’t independent of each other.  If Trump were to win Iowa by 7, it would make me question Biden’s polling leads in other battleground states. 

I suspect it’s an outlier. Their earlier poll in late September showed a tie in IA. Is there reason to believe the race has changed so much in the last month? We’re not seeing such dramatic movement in other polls. Regardless, though, it’s a point of hope for Trump supporters who believe in polling.
 

 
It seems like an obvious article to write because it’s true. Trump could win. Anyone who states otherwise doesn’t understand polling and statistics.
I agree. I just find it interesting that outlets are NOW willing to address the polling factors and Biden campaign errors that some of the right leaning outlets have been pointing out for weeks.

Issues that plenty on these boards have dismissed as "talking points". 

 
I agree. I just find it interesting that outlets are NOW willing to address the polling factors and Biden campaign errors that some of the right leaning outlets have been pointing out for weeks.

Issues that plenty on these boards have dismissed as "talking points". 
I haven’t seen this too much personally but I’ve been more interested in the data/stats guys than the partisan talking heads. The stats guys have talked about it a lot. Nate Silver quipped about how he spends 90% of his time thinking about something that will happen 10% of the time.

 
I haven’t seen this too much personally but I’ve been more interested in the data/stats guys than the partisan talking heads. The stats guys have talked about it a lot. Nate Silver quipped about how he spends 90% of his time thinking about something that will happen 10% of the time.
So what is your opinion on statistics? It feels like no matter the side the statistics can be skewed to show favorable to either candidate.

There have been a couple studies now that show trump voters are less likely to answer polls accurately due to fears of being judged or outed. Some here think that is ridiculous, but now we're seeing reporting that polls could be wrong and this is likely a reason why.

 
So what is your opinion on statistics? It feels like no matter the side the statistics can be skewed to show favorable to either candidate.

There have been a couple studies now that show trump voters are less likely to answer polls accurately due to fears of being judged or outed. Some here think that is ridiculous, but now we're seeing reporting that polls could be wrong and this is likely a reason why.
Factors like that can play a role in why Trump can win despite the polls usually giving Biden such big leads.  If Trump wins, it will be interesting to read the post-mortems from the pollsters.  The pollsters do make adjustments to their numbers to reflect what they believe are proper samples of voters.  That includes the "shy" Trump voter concept.   

 
So what is your opinion on statistics? It feels like no matter the side the statistics can be skewed to show favorable to either candidate.

There have been a couple studies now that show trump voters are less likely to answer polls accurately due to fears of being judged or outed. Some here think that is ridiculous, but now we're seeing reporting that polls could be wrong and this is likely a reason why.
I think for the most part polls have been fairly accurate.  They get it wrong sometimes and then try to use historicals to figure out how they got it wrong and adjust for next time.  But for the most part they are correct.

I believe that the pollsters are so worried about what happened in 2016 that they are over adjusting.  I'm one of the few on these boards that think Biden will beat his polls numbers and that this election will not be close.  I just see everything pointing to Trump getting smoked.  Polls, early voting, massive voting numbers, 2018 midterms.  All of these things are favoring the Democrats.  To me this is a case of Occam's razor.  

I have a couple $100 bets with some friends who are positive Trump is going to win.  One of my friend even offered me 3-1 odds (I did not take the odds), but he gets all his news from Conservative channels.

I know anything can happen, but I am generally driven by logic.

 
I think for the most part polls have been fairly accurate.  They get it wrong sometimes and then try to use historicals to figure out how they got it wrong and adjust for next time.  But for the most part they are correct.

I believe that the pollsters are so worried about what happened in 2016 that they are over adjusting.  I'm one of the few on these boards that think Biden will beat his polls numbers and that this election will not be close.  I just see everything pointing to Trump getting smoked.  Polls, early voting, massive voting numbers, 2018 midterms.  All of these things are favoring the Democrats.  To me this is a case of Occam's razor.  

I have a couple $100 bets with some friends who are positive Trump is going to win.  One of my friend even offered me 3-1 odds (I did not take the odds), but he gets all his news from Conservative channels.

I know anything can happen, but I am generally driven by logic.
I'm with you.  The record number of voters coming out are not split 50-50.  Logic would point to a blue landslide.  Trump will have succeeded in uniting this country (against him).  Too many folks are tired of the hate and division he's caused.

 
I'm with you.  The record number of voters coming out are not split 50-50.  Logic would point to a blue landslide.  Trump will have succeeded in uniting this country (against him).  Too many folks are tired of the hate and division he's caused.
I think that Trump incorrectly believes that great rally's won him the 2016 election.  The rally's may have helped a little, but the big factor in 2016 were the undecided voters breaking towards Trump, and the Dems staying home (a large part because of peoples feelings about Hillary).  He captured a huge percentage of these voters and most of them did not go to Trump rally's.

Biden is up a lot more than Hillary was at this point in the election, the number of undecided voters is substantially less, and the polls are showing that this small group is breaking evenly between the candidates.

I just don't get how people can be positive about a Trump win.  I could understand being hopeful but recognizing that its an uphill battle, but there are so many that think without a doubt that Trump will win.

 
Some of the attendees at MAGA rallies are repeats, such as this guy and his family who were the first in line at OpaLocka airport in north Miami-Dade (of Amelia Earhart fame). It's his 7th MAGA rally this summer and he's super-excited to see the president yet again. He showed up 14 hours early. The rally is supposed to start at 11:30pm tonight, which means it would likely be in violation of the county midnight curfew. And as usual, attendees are waiving all their legal rights to sue over COVID-19 exposure. 

 
Factors like that can play a role in why Trump can win despite the polls usually giving Biden such big leads.  If Trump wins, it will be interesting to read the post-mortems from the pollsters.  The pollsters do make adjustments to their numbers to reflect what they believe are proper samples of voters.  That includes the "shy" Trump voter concept.   
I just don't trust the pollsters right now. I think the social bias against Trump support can not be accurately measured. Everyone is giving themselves an out in case they are wrong and I think it speaks to that. 

 
Some of the attendees at MAGA rallies are repeats, such as this guy and his family who were the first in line at OpaLocka airport in north Miami-Dade (of Amelia Earhart fame). It's his 7th MAGA rally this summer and he's super-excited to see the president yet again. He showed up 14 hours early. The rally is supposed to start at 11:30pm tonight, which means it would likely be in violation of the county midnight curfew. And as usual, attendees are waiving all their legal rights to sue over COVID-19 exposure
It's crazy to me how naive people are about the Covid danger.

 
I just don't trust the pollsters right now. I think the social bias against Trump support can not be accurately measured. Everyone is giving themselves an out in case they are wrong and I think it speaks to that. 
That’s all valid, 2016 exposed some flaws in the system.  One question though, may pollsters have claimed to have made adjustments based on what the learned in ‘16.  If the polls in general are correct this year will you trust them again?

*I ask you and others this because it’s the question I’m asking myself.   

 
I just don't trust the pollsters right now. I think the social bias against Trump support can not be accurately measured. Everyone is giving themselves an out in case they are wrong and I think it speaks to that. 
Yeah, I get it.  One other point to make.  I strongly believe that the reputable pollsters are trying to get it as right as they can.  They might be making big mistakes but I don't think it's due to bias.

 
Nope. Me being honest. 

And we'll definitely continue to moderate if we have a forum. 
It's never a bad thing to be honest, that's to be applauded. As to your second sentence, moderation is not a synonym of censorship. No one is calling for you to stop moderating your forums. Consistency is all anyone asks for. Hopefully it's better going forward.

 
Sounds a lot like Twitter's excuse when they're caught in hypocrisy.

How about stopping censorship altogether then no need to apologize?
So you guys are advocating for all these websites to 100% let anything go and let anybody say what they want?   Seems like a weird stance if so.  

If not, and you are saying there should be some sort of line, what do you think it should be?  As an owner, Joe shouldn't be able to decide what that line is?

 
So odd that asking for equal treatment and consistency gets immediately bastardized into a call for a free for all by the side benefitting from the unequal moderation. Actually it's not odd at all, it's par for the course.

 
That’s all valid, 2016 exposed some flaws in the system.  One question though, may pollsters have claimed to have made adjustments based on what the learned in ‘16.  If the polls in general are correct this year will you trust them again?

*I ask you and others this because it’s the question I’m asking myself.   
I'll give them more credit. But consider 2018 if you think they fixed all their polling issues then. DeSantis was what a 4-5 pt underdog in the polls and pulled it off?  When you dive into those polls, they made the exact same mistakes.

If the polls are wrong again, are you still going to give them credit they know what they are doing?

 
I'll give them more credit. But consider 2018 if you think they fixed all their polling issues then. DeSantis was what a 4-5 pt underdog in the polls and pulled it off?  When you dive into those polls, they made the exact same mistakes.

If the polls are wrong again, are you still going to give them credit they know what they are doing?
Not sure if you missed my last sentence or not but I’m not giving them any credit right now.  Don’t trust the polls at the moment, hence why I’m asking myself (and others like you) if I can again.  

 
It's never a bad thing to be honest, that's to be applauded. As to your second sentence, moderation is not a synonym of censorship. No one is calling for you to stop moderating your forums. Consistency is all anyone asks for. Hopefully it's better going forward.
Trying to be consistent is the thing we work hardest on. And the single biggest truth of this forum is that everyone thinks THEIR side is unfairly treated while the OTHER side gets away with everything. That's life. Same as Day 1. 

I don't expect the consistency to change from where it's been. But we'll keep trying. As we have forever. 

 
So odd that asking for equal treatment and consistency gets immediately bastardized into a call for a free for all by the side benefitting from the unequal moderation. Actually it's not odd at all, it's par for the course.
Just asking a question.  What is your suggestion for more consistency?

 
Not sure if you missed my last sentence or not but I’m not giving them any credit right now.  Don’t trust the polls at the moment, hence why I’m asking myself (and others like you) if I can again.  
Gotcha. I think traditional polling is dead. The methods used historically don't seem to be the best models in today's society.

I think they have to work on how they phrase questions and who they talk to vs random yes or nos over the phone. 

Evolve or die right?

 
Gotcha. I think traditional polling is dead. The methods used historically don't seem to be the best models in today's society.

I think they have to work on how they phrase questions and who they talk to vs random yes or nos over the phone. 

Evolve or die right?
Agreed no doubt.  

It’s going to be one of the many interesting narratives or outcomes of this election.  Nate from 538 speaks to changes made because of lessons learned. We’ll see if that the case or another round of “lessons” will be served.  

 
I'll give them more credit. But consider 2018 if you think they fixed all their polling issues then. DeSantis was what a 4-5 pt underdog in the polls and pulled it off?  When you dive into those polls, they made the exact same mistakes.

If the polls are wrong again, are you still going to give them credit they know what they are doing?
I would be interested to see how correct the polls were in 2018.  Plus/Minus 3% of the time with a 95% confidence. This would mean that in 20 races, the polls would be correct if the final results were within 3% in 19 of the 20 races.  

 
I would be interested to see how correct the polls were in 2018.  Plus/Minus 3% of the time with a 95% confidence. This would mean that in 20 races, the polls would be correct if the final results were within 3% in 19 of the 20 races.  
Do you think Biden is going to win Florida? The numbers I've heard don't look good for that.

 
Do you think Biden is going to win Florida? The numbers I've heard don't look good for that.
That one falls within the 3% and has actually gone back and forth.  I would say Biden is a very small favorite in Florida.  I wouldn't bet money on that one, but if someone forced me to make a decision I would just go with the odds.

 
Do you think Biden is going to win Florida? The numbers I've heard don't look good for that.
That one falls within the 3% and has actually gone back and forth.  I would say Biden is a very small favorite in Florida.  I wouldn't bet money on that one, but if someone forced me to make a decision I would just go with the odds.
From what I’ve seen early turnout, while strong and favoring Biden, isn’t favoring him as much as he’d need to carry the state. The odds “feel” very low for Biden imo. If (big IF) he does carry it though that’s bad news for Trump.   

 
Trying to be consistent is the thing we work hardest on. And the single biggest truth of this forum is that everyone thinks THEIR side is unfairly treated while the OTHER side gets away with everything. That's life. Same as Day 1. 

I don't expect the consistency to change from where it's been. But we'll keep trying. As we have forever. 
Is it true people get suspended for months for using certain emoji and disagreeing with each other and for saying Biden stutters?  Ive seen way worse just the past couple days, in this thread alone against Trump.  The posts that are over the top trolling seem to vanish, but the posters keep posting. I've never seen a forum quite like this one before. 

 
Is it true people get suspended for months for using certain emoji and disagreeing with each other and for saying Biden stutters?  Ive seen way worse just the past couple days, in this thread alone against Trump.  The posts that are over the top trolling seem to vanish, but the posters keep posting. I've never seen a forum quite like this one before. 
And the single biggest truth of this forum is that everyone thinks THEIR side is unfairly treated while the OTHER side gets away with everything. That's life. Same as Day 1.

If you see something well over the line, please report it. Just make sure it's really over the line. TIA. 

 
people are forgetting that the polls can be correct and Trump can still win.  If Trump squeeks out a couple races that are within the 3% error rate, and also wins 1 or 2 that are within the 95% sampling rate (like PA), then he wins the election and the polls are still correct.

These scenarios are not likely, but still within reason.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you guys are advocating for all these websites to 100% let anything go and let anybody say what they want?   Seems like a weird stance if so.  

If not, and you are saying there should be some sort of line, what do you think it should be?  As an owner, Joe shouldn't be able to decide what that line is?
As a conservative, Twitter can do whatever it wants.  Private company.  You do you.

But section 230 is of tremendous value for them.  And if they selectively edit/prohibit tweets based on politics, they’re clearly acting as a publisher—and not a platform.

And they really just can’t afford to be a publisher.  People post all kinds of slander, threats, porn, etc.

 
I'll give them more credit. But consider 2018 if you think they fixed all their polling issues then. DeSantis was what a 4-5 pt underdog in the polls and pulled it off?  When you dive into those polls, they made the exact same mistakes.

If the polls are wrong again, are you still going to give them credit they know what they are doing?
How many voters have been influenced by these polls?  Why would the pollsters change?  

 
Totally understand. No worries. 
I found this place because of FF and the Shark Pool. Pretty sure that is how everyone found it.  That was the draw, not people arguing and trolling about Biden, Trump abortions and basically hatin on each other. Maybe it is time to get back to your roots and the simple life again. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top