Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place


Recommended Posts

On 10/25/2020 at 2:43 PM, squistion said:

Tragalgar is just one poll. 

538 updated average of 2020 Presidential polls for Florida show Biden up by 2.4%

Biden 49.1%

Trump 46.6 %

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/

What? I thought Biden was ahead by eleventy billion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, squistion said:

The New York Post is a tabloid.

The National Enquirer is a tabloid.

And endorsement of Trump by The National Enquirer would probably carry the same weight as far as voters are concerned as this endorsement by The New York Post.

Yes and the national enquirer took down John Edward's campaign years ago with his infidelity.  Your analogy is meaningless. 

The facts are the facts no matter how it gets out

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tommyboy said:

Yes and the national enquirer took down John Edward's campaign years ago with his infidelity.  Your analogy is meaningless. 

The facts are the facts no matter how it gets out

I wish I had a dollar in my 401k for every time The National Enquirer has gotten the facts wrong in a story. This publication is taken seriously as a legitimate source of news by almost no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

President Donald Trump deserves more credit for his extensive achievements that have helped black Americans, according to CNN commentator Van Jones.

“I think it’s really unfortunate because Donald Trump, and I get beat up by liberals every time I say it but I keep saying it, he has done good stuff for the black community,” Jones said Friday during a CNN panel discussion on “The Lead with Jake Tapper.

“Opportunity Zone stuff, black college stuff, I worked with him on criminal stuff, I saw Donald Trump have African-American people, formerly incarcerated, in the White House, embraced them, treated them well. There is a side to Donald Trump that I think he does not get enough credit for.”

link

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Ahh, you’re against science when it doesn’t fit your narrative? No one in here will be shocked. 

Not at all, I am against this vague "some scientists say" as being proof of anything. Some scientists says lots of things, like climate change is not man made or that evolution is unproven or that the earth is flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, squistion said:

Not at all, I am against this vague "some scientists say" as being proof of anything. Some scientists says lots of things, like climate change is not man made or that evolution is unproven or that the earth is flat.

Ahh, so you only like science when it’s from the scientists that fit your agenda...glad we are getting all this on record in here. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GoBirds said:

Ahh, so you only like science when it’s from the scientists that fit your agenda...glad we are getting all this on record in here. 

No. To repeat what I said before because perhaps you didn't read it:

Quote

Not at all, I am against this vague "some scientists say" as being proof of anything. Some scientists says lots of things, like climate change is not man made or that evolution is unproven or that the earth is flat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

No. To repeat what I said before because perhaps you didn't read it:

 

Please disprove it with facts, show us you aren’t willfully ignoring anything that hurts your talking points?:popcorn:

Otherwise let’s move along and thanks for the great example. 

Edited by GoBirds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GoBirds said:

Please disprove it with facts, show us you aren’t willfully ignoring anything that hurts your talking points?:popcorn:

:mellow:

I have no idea what you are saying or what point you are trying to make, or how even to respond to it.

I am through here with this particular discussion and will not respond anything further on this digression. 

Have a good evening sir.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

RECENTLY BROWSING   3 MEMBERS HellToupee jerseydevil20 squistion

:bye:

Why wouldn't I browse? I said I wouldn't continue the particular discussion with GoBirds as to what "some scientists" were saying.

 

Edited by squistion
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Why wouldn't I browse? I said I wouldn't continue the particular discussion with GoBirds as to what "some scientists" were saying.

 

Glad to see the Science enlightened you, we don’t hold grudges in here welcome aboard friend. Better late than never. :hifive:

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sneegor said:

That is like refinancing your 2.75% mortgage to a 5.75% mortgage.

Weirdly enough, the economy tends to do better with a Democrat in office, but points to the GOP for consistently beating that fear drum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sneegor said:

That is like refinancing your 2.75% mortgage to a 5.75% mortgage.

Price disruption in a pool of money you can't touch until retirement isn't anything remotely similar to paying 3 hundred basis points more per month to live in your home.  Jeez....

Edited by General Malaise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GoBirds said:

Please disprove it with facts, show us you aren’t willfully ignoring anything that hurts your talking points?:popcorn:

Otherwise let’s move along and thanks for the great example. 

1. You don’t make a claim and tell others to disprove it and call it “science.” 
2. Your post says “some scientists say” when the linked article shows it is clearly one scientist here with a theory. I’m not going to say that theory is wrong, but there isn’t any proof of his theory given in the article.
 

When a scientist says “results could be 80-90% higher” we have what is called a hypothesis, which is a theory we then try to prove through a series of tests, with results that can be repeated by other scientists. Seems like it would be easy to prove if there were 90% false positives.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

1. You don’t make a claim and tell others to disprove it and call it “science.” 
2. Your post says “some scientists say” when the linked article shows it is clearly one scientist here with a theory. I’m not going to say that theory is wrong, but there isn’t any proof of his theory given in the article.
 

When a scientist says “results could be 80-90% higher” we have what is called a hypothesis, which is a theory we then try to prove through a series of tests, with results that can be repeated by other scientists. Seems like it would be easy to prove if there were 90% false positives.

So you are downplaying the science since it’s not “All Scinetinsts say”? I didn’t realize the science you speak of clears that bar. You and others are the ones making claims we are at all time highs which if this Science is correct put those claims in serious question....was just curious if any of you could disprove this. I assume the media will try to avoid this Science just like posters in the Corona thread have. That my hypothesis at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

So you are downplaying the science since it’s not “All Scinetinsts say”? I didn’t realize the science you speak of clears that bar. You and others are the ones making claims we are at all time highs which if this Science is correct put those claims in serious question....was just curious if any of you could disprove this. I assume the media will try to avoid this Science just like posters in the Corona thread have. That my hypothesis at least. 

I’m not downplaying anything. I’m saying there is no proof in the article other than one scientist’s unproven theory. He hasn’t run tests at different thresholds and found his results to be true; he is speculating. I think it’s reasonable to question his hypothesis. Perhaps he is correct. Perhaps he is partially correct, and there are fewer cases but not the 80-90% he claims, or maybe he’s completely wrong. There isn’t any evidence there, unless I missed it. 
 

*the part I have a problem with is where he says “if we take the cycling down to 30 it could reduce the number of positive cases by 80-90%.” That is the hypothesis, not a proven conclusion he can draw from his studies. 

Edited by Snorkelson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jamny said:

It's a shame the liberal media has been so negative about Trump.  He's done some very good things for minority communities.  It's nice to see that every now and then a commentator who doesn't like Trump can still give credit where credit is due. 

My biggest fear from what I'm seeing is that the media (both MS and Social) has become a Federal propaganda machine for the Democrats.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trump Administration crackdown on human trafficking has really made an impact over the last year.  Sadly, this sick problem was not part of the debate.  Another reason to give Trump four more years so he can wipe out these monsters like he did with ISIS.  
 


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/26/operation-autumn-hope-45-missing-children-ohio-179-arrests/6049990002/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

Who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. Despite Republicans themselves having spent years suggesting Garland as an acceptable Democratic choice,[1] the Senate Republican majority refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama's presidency, with the Republican majority insisting that the next elected president should fill the vacancy. The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial. Some Republican lawmakers even suggested leaving the court with just eight seats if Hillary Clinton were to be elected, saying they would block Garland or any other nominee and keep the seat vacant for at least another presidential term.[1] Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress. The seat Garland was nominated for was eventually filled by Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Looks like that coalition of strong, independent, educated, intelligent and beautiful suburban woman are still firmly Pro-Trump. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/10/27/election-2020-suburban-mom-biden-trump-voter-column/6044159002/

That is an opinion piece by just one suburban mom. Hardly representing a strong coalition if recent polls of suburban women are any indication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

Looks like that coalition of strong, independent, educated, intelligent and beautiful suburban woman are still firmly Pro-Trump. 
 


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/10/27/election-2020-suburban-mom-biden-trump-voter-column/6044159002/

 

You know....for a second.....I actually thought the former communications aide to Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and the Senate Republican Policy Committee was going to go for Biden.  

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, squistion said:

I wish I had a dollar in my 401k for every time The National Enquirer has gotten the facts wrong in a story. This publication is taken seriously as a legitimate source of news by almost no one.

I agree.  But they got it right that one time.  You can't deny the post story now, it's been verified repeatedly.  You can try,  but it makes you look foolish.  Sometimes a story gets out in a strange way,  but it's true. This is one of those times. 

Biden was already a loser candidate, but this corruption angle is the death blow.  You can thank your lovely DNC overlords, they went with Hillary and Biden after the party clearly wanted to go younger and more progressive with the success of Obama 

Edited by tommyboy
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tommyboy said:

I agree.  But they got it right that one time.  You can't deny the post story now, it's been verified repeatedly.  You can try,  but it makes you look foolish.  Sometimes a story gets out in a strange way,  but it's true. This is one of those times. 

Biden was already a lover candidate but this corruption angle is the death blow.  You can thank your lovely DNC overlords, they went with Hillary and Biden after the party clearly wanted to go younger and more progressive with the success of Obama 

There is no indication yet that it has resonated with voters or anyone outside the Fox/Breitbart bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, squistion said:

There is no indication yet that it has resonated with voters or anyone outside the Fox/Breitbart bubble.

Do a search on "can I change my vote" on Google or YouTube. 

Regardless,  maybe you haven't noticed but that double digit  Biden lead from a couple weeks ago has vanished.  Not that it was ever real...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • knowledge dropper changed the title to TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...