Presidential Debate

Author: MisterChris
Politics
Trump
Biden
Debate
PresidentialDebate

Posts

Total: 190
#151
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
I literally showed it was much more than that lol. Why are you lying?
I literally showed you how the polling was a 6% difference in 2016. You then repeat over and over and over that it was 10. Even though your own stats disprove your point.

There were isolated cases that were further off than 2%. I said 2% was the general trend. But why would I engage with you on a break down of statistics when you can look at a 6% difference and straight up lie that it was 10%? You are deluding yourself and will say and believe whatever reinforces your worldview. You want to believe that trump will win, so even though he is losing pretty much everywhere that matters, you insist that all the available evidence is wrong and your own extremely biased opinions are the only things that matter. 
#152
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,003
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I literally showed you how the polling was a 6% difference in 2016. You then repeat over and over and over that it was 10. Even though your own stats disprove your point. 
No you haven’t. Your link shows November numbers. Click on your own link dude.

There were isolated cases that were further off than 2%. I said 2% was the general trend.
Which cases are you talking about? The critical states were the ones I mentioned in my post especially the Rust Belt.

But why would I engage with you on a break down of statistics when you can look at a 6% difference and straight up lie that it was 10%? You are deluding yourself and will say and believe whatever reinforces your worldview. You want to believe that trump will win, so even though he is losing pretty much everywhere that matters, you insist that all the available evidence is wrong and your own extremely biased opinions are the only things that matter.
I know he’ll win lol. You rely on polls at your own peril. They didn’t improve in 2018 and won’t improve now. I unlike you know how to read polls. I know the systematic biases that arise in the polls. You don’t. There’s a reason why NYT/Siena polls showed that they didn’t reach Trump supporters in his strongest regions in PA and OH.
#153
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
No you haven’t. Your link shows November numbers. Click on your own link dude.
alright, i give up. The top is a chart that shows numbers for months. 

Which cases are you talking about? The critical states were the ones I mentioned in my post especially the Rust Belt.
there were cases that were more off, that is true. But i'm not getting into the nitty gritty of polling with someone who straight up lies that 6% is the same as 10%

I know he’ll win lol. You rely on polls at your own peril.
whatever. Feel free to be surprised as trump goes down in flames. Don't say you weren't warned. But I'm sure you will scream and whine that it was rigged after trump loses. 
#154
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,003
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
alright, i give up. The top is a chart that shows numbers for months. 
Why don’t you give actual numbers lol. Can’t find em?

there were cases that were more off, that is true. But i'm not getting into the nitty gritty of polling with someone who straight up lies that 6% is the same as 10%
Glad we agree that the critical rust belt states had insane margins of error. You know they were wrong. They were also wrong in 2018. You choose to believe that they’re right in 2020. I choose to look at fundamentals and questions that avoid social desirability bias.

whatever. Feel free to be surprised as trump goes down in flames. Don't say you weren't warned. But I'm sure you will scream and whine that it was rigged after trump loses.
Wasn’t me screaming rigged for the past 4 years 
#155
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Why don’t you give actual numbers lol. Can’t find em?
I gave you sources. Hell, I used stats from your own source. I won't continue this line of discussion when you lie about what my sources and your own sources say. 

Glad we agree that the critical rust belt states had insane margins of error
well you seem to not understand what I'm saying, probably intentionally. But lets give this a shot.

Some of the polling was wrong. but alot of it was quite accurate. The general trend was trump did 2% better than his polls. In Michigan he did 4% better. Which is certainly higher, but definitely not an "insane margin of error". In Pennsylvania he did about 3% better than his polling, definitely not an "insane margin of error". 

But I will also acknowledge that there were isolated cases where the polling was further off. For example in Wisconsin where he overperformed by about 7%. But these were the exceptions, not the rule. Most of the polling was pretty accurate. But because the race was so close (4% nationally) small margins of error were enough to carry him over the line in a few critical states. 

The race is very different this time. He isn't looking at being down by 4%. He is down by 10%. The polls would have to be much further off now than they were in 2016. If the polls had the same margin of error as they did in 2016, trump would get absolutely slaughtered. 
#156
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
"I never said people are being paid to protest, they are looking to cash in on lawsuits." 
You "never"said that? You absolutely did say that. Your exact words were: "Unless of course I am being paid to take tear gas to the face for a photo op with CNN to show how bad the Orangeman is."

So to be clear you absolutely did say people were being paid to protest (don't gaslight me) which is a completely different thing than cashing in on lawsuits. You failed to prove with a single one of those links that anyone was being paid to protest because they're not. Stop repeating dumb ass conspiracy theories. 

I don't think there are enough lawsuits won against the police. If police wore body cameras all the time and footage captured other people violently antagonizing them, they wouldn't lose or have to settle those lawsuits so often now would they? There would be proof they acted accordingly or in a way most citizens would agree with. Police unions are the ones who aggressively lobby to limit the use of body cams and other recordings, and when legislatures force them to wear it they mysteriously "malfunction" in the midst of a violent altercation. So that's on them. 

I also find it funny that in order to prove your "Orange man bad" point mocking leftists and CNN that you chose to cite several links about The Sovereign Citizens movement, known for being right-wing extremists lol. That's good stuff. 

#157
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
You can get paid through civil lawsuits. 

Relax.

You know these people exist. Don't gaslight me with your "Conspiracy" bullshit deflections.

Sovereign Citizens is obviously Anarchist in nature, but I guess the libtard deflection Orangemanbad wagon these days demands that anyone "bad" is labeled "right-wing."
More gaslighting.

Relax.

Next thing you know you'll be saying the people throwing ice bottles at police were white supremacists.

Relax with the conspiracy gaslighting.
#158
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Hehe. I just wanted to be clear that being "paid to protest" is a false conspiracy theory peddled incessantly by right-wing retards, and also by left-wing anti Semites (many of them black). It's some Alex Jones type horse shit and deserves ridicule every time it's mentioned. It's almost in the same realm as "crisis actors." So I'm pretty relaxed but just wanted to clarify your claim was false. You are talking about the overly litigious people and subsequent "ambulance chasers" that intentionally seek out conflict or injury just to sue. Those people exist but #1 is not the same as being paid to protest, so I wanted to confirm that talking point that Q Anon and others on the right whine about is not accurate, and #2 the examples you cited were right-wing agitators and provocateurs - not CNN. Obviously if you're going to double down on making a point by citing a bunch of irrelevant links I'm going to call it out. You tried to make a point and failed and now you're shifting goal posts by saying you weren't actually talking about "paid protesters" but something else entirely. The overwhelming majority of protesters don't sue. You're just whining and can't back up what you said. Periodt. 
#159
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,003
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
White supremacists looting a 7-Eleven in Oakland



#160
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Imagine conflating Anarchists with right-wing.

Orangmanbad brings out serious delusions of granduer.
#161
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,003
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine conflating Anarchists with right-wing.

Orangmanbad brings out serious delusions of granduer.
My dad has more videos of white supremacists breaking into 7-Elevens in Dallas

13 days later

#162
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
Why is Biden wanting the USA to move away from oil a bad statement to make?
Seems reasonable idea to me.
#163
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
China agrees that USA should move away from fossil fuels.
#164
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Logically they're still 'valuable, just seems intelligent to diversify ones energy options is all I'm saying.
#165
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
That's for the consumers to decide. It's why we don't use whale oil anymore.
#166
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,003
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Logically they're still 'valuable, just seems intelligent to diversify ones energy options is all I'm saying.
Ya but Biden wants to get rid of it by 2025, increasing energy prices astronomically. Let the market work out instead of an arbitrary and unfair deadline which what the Paris Accords do
#167
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure government grants subsidies, seems to me it should grant them in the interest of the state and the people.
Seems to me if they have policies and programs, they should be in the interest of the state and the people.
Government/Tom McCall was a reason that Oregon had a good stretch of being environmentally friendly for a time.

Back to oil though, saying, I'm sure the oil companies and consumer know what's best,
Just seems to be ignoring the problem, to my way of thinking.

This humorous clip illustrates,
Memorial Honors Victims Of Imminent Dam Disaster
#168
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Ya but Biden wants to get rid of it by 2025, increasing energy prices astronomically. Let the market work out instead of an arbitrary and unfair deadline which what the Paris Accords do
Do you have a source/quote?
#169
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
Pretty sure government grants subsidies.

We granted subsidies to counter OPEC's power, but we can prolly ease up a bit since Covid has really depressed fuel prices with too much surplus.
#170
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
Do you have a source/quote?

I think it's on Biden's website. Green new deal type plan.
#171
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@MisterChris
One phrase of the video MisterChris recommended stood out to me a bit.

"As no government is willing to tell it's citizens, they will live worse lives than their parents, every government inflates their currency as much as possible." - Why is the World Crazy Now?
#172
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
The problem with going with green energy is that China right now is in a position to out subsidize us for the equipment. So the choice is to outmaneuver OPEC with fossil subsidies which we can do, or outmaneuver China with green energy, which we can NOT do.

The Solyndra debacle taught us that hard lesson.
#173
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So basically what you're saying is you think China can find alternative to oil better than us.
But you figure the USA is better at grabbing oil than China.

Let me ask you this then, why do a number of people think it is advantageous to find alternatives to oil?
Not trying to trap you, or pretend I'm smarter, just looking for information.
#174
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I'm saying China knows how to destroy the USA in a bid war for Solar Panels, especially because USA is fucking retarded ironically with draconian regulations on the manufacture of green energy.

Free market will find what the consumer wants and will be willing to pay for. You just have to let it develop without bullshit regulations.
#175
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,003
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Do you have a source/quote?
He said it at the debate this past Thursday.

“I do rule out banning fracking because we need other industries to get ultimately to complete zero omissions by 2025.”

#176
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,003
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
So basically what you're saying is you think China can find alternative to oil better than us.
But you figure the USA is better at grabbing oil than China.
China is better at producing. The equipment needed for all of this will be dominated by China. Say bye bye to making steel and concrete cause that uses fossil fuels. Say bye to electricity cause we don’t have enough of it with green energy (just look at the rolling blackouts in CA while other states are chillin.) Hell just look at the gas prices in Texas compared to California. We’re talking probably greater than 4 dollars a gallon of gas within 5 years

Let me ask you this then, why do a number of people think it is advantageous to find alternatives to oil?
Not trying to trap you, or pretend I'm smarter, just looking for information.
Oil will always be needed. Every fossil fuel will be needed. Abolishing fossil fuels is killing millions of jobs to manufacture soemthing that requires coal or oil. It’s counterintuitive 
#177
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Well, the website you directed me to had a video where Biden stated,
"We have to move towards a net zero emissions. The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050 totally." - Joe Biden
I didn't see a video where he said 2025.
In the video you showed me, he talked about transitioning.
Countries have transitioned through many different technologies and developments of history. From plows and tractors, horses and cars, hand makers to automated factories.

I see you also think China will corner us on the Green market if we pursue that direction.

I don't think the Romans 'needed fossil fuels when they made steel and concrete.

I disagree with your perspective of bye bye to electricity, for various reasons, but I'm lazy to argue the point.

Are fossil fuels an infinite resource?
#178
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
Countries have transitioned through many different technologies and developments of history. From plows and tractors, horses and cars, hand makers to automated factories.

There's not a single nation on the planet that innovated through government intervention. America will be fine if it is not the first nation to have zero emissions on the planet, and it will also be fine if there will never be a nation with zero emissions on the planet because there isn't a consumer on the planet willing to pay the price for zero emissions.
#179
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,228
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
I see you also think China will corner us on the Green market if we pursue that direction.

China does not even use the panels it makes. Do you know what China's rate of CO2 emissions is projected to be in 2050? Three times the USA if the USA does nothing right now. Much more if Biden is elected. If you care about the earth, you should stop promoting green energy technology that pollutes the planet when China will undoubtedly be the nation that will make the equipment in filthy factories run on fossil fuels. Plus as a bonus, all of USA's waste panels will go to China to be thrown into the Pacific because draconian USA regulations will never allow for proper disposal of panels at a reasonable cost. Much of the current filth in the Pacific right now is composed of American recyclables placed in bins that were shipped over to China to be processed since USA regulations make it near impossible to efficiently process recyclables locally, even with heavy subsidies. Just imagine millions of tons of solar panels added to the Pacific. FUN!

Yay for stupid ideas!


#180
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,216
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
There's not a single nation on the planet that innovated through government intervention. America will be fine if it is not the first nation to have zero emissions on the planet, and it will also be fine if there will never be a nation with zero emissions on the planet because there isn't a consumer on the planet willing to pay the price for zero emissions.
That statement seems obviously wrong to me, but I'm not interested in arguing the point with someone who does not realize this.

Yay for stupid ideas!
Well, I've heard your opinion.