Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[Faun]

Got it Cupcake don't understand most of US on the left oppose Cheeto's POLICIES where the right seemed to focus on that "Kenyan Moooslim" guy we elected over his policies!

BTW, Cheering a major US city losing a GREAT opportunity to host an Olympics is NOTHING like opposing the Cheeto and therefore there is no hypocrisy Cupcake

wrong on all accounts. Most of America approves of what Trump is doing.

Liar.

for the final time, those same polls said Hillary was going to win. She lost, they lied.

The polls predicted she would win the popular vote by about 3 percentage points and she won it by about 2 points. The polls were accurate. Your lies are not.

wrong, the polls said she would win the ELECTION. She lost, they either lied or were flawed.

I fully understand how the pollsters manipulate the mathematic laws of statistics. They claim that they create a sample that proportionally represents all of the demographics in a population of 330 million. That is simply impossible and anyone who believes that is naïve.

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

 

[danielpalos]

End Wage Slavery on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States!

 

[rightwinger]

wrong on all accounts. Most of America approves of what Trump is doing.

Liar.

for the final time, those same polls said Hillary was going to win. She lost, they lied.

The polls predicted she would win the popular vote by about 3 percentage points and she won it by about 2 points. The polls were accurate. Your lies are not.

wrong, the polls said she would win the ELECTION. She lost, they either lied or were flawed.

I fully understand how the pollsters manipulate the mathematic laws of statistics. They claim that they create a sample that proportionally represents all of the demographics in a population of 330 million. That is simply impossible and anyone who believes that is naïve.

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

 

[Dschrute3]

Like CONservatives did?

Rooting against America: Beck, other conservatives cheer elimination of Chicago's Olympic bid

Beck: "Oh, it's so sweet" that Chicago's bid failed; "savor this moment."

Lou Dobbs: "On today's broadcast, the IOC just says 'no' to Chicago! As the Drudge Report says 'The Ego Has Landed.' "


Breitbart website: "It is kind of like the world community saying to President Obama, 'Not only no, but Hell No.' "


Limbaugh: For those "upset that I sound gleeful -- I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy."

RedState.com's Erickson: "World rejects Barack Obama. ... Hahahahaha."

Weekly Standard blog post reportedly said "[c]heers erupt[ed] at" magazine in response to Chicago losing bid.


Malkin: "Goodbye, 'Yes We Can.' Hello, 'No, You Can't.' "

You doing the same thing, doesn't make it right. It only makes you a bitter hypocrite.

Got it Cupcake don't understand most of US on the left oppose Cheeto's POLICIES where the right seemed to focus on that "Kenyan Moooslim" guy we elected over his policies!

BTW, Cheering a major US city losing a GREAT opportunity to host an Olympics is NOTHING like opposing the Cheeto and therefore there is no hypocrisy Cupcake

wrong on all accounts. Most of America approves of what Trump is doing. Chicago did a shitty job of presenting itself to the Olympic committee. Its not really a partisan issue. Obama made it partisan by inserting himself into it------and then losing. So he created the link that branded him a loser. Much like "if you like your plan you can keep it".

Obama's policies were good for radical muslims, illegal aliens, and America haters. Most of America understands that, some, like you, never will.

Trump was at 34% approval as of yesterday
Seems most do not approve of what he is doing

how many people in that "poll" where do they live? what party do they claim? are they on welfare, illegals, hollyloonies? A poll of 1000 democrats doesn't prove anything. We already know that pollsters lie. Remember the polls that said Hillary would win a landslide? the ones that said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

these are not polls, they are propaganda.

A wise observation. Polls are used as tools for brainwashing. That's the only purpose they serve. Folks should have learned by now that they're Bullshite. But many can't resist touting polls that conclude what they want them to conclude. It makes them feel better. It reassures them.

Folks just need to start ignoring polls. They shouldn't allow themselves to be conditioned. My advice is, ignore all polls, even the ones that conclude what you want them to conclude.

 

[Dschrute3]

This is great news for American Workers. Even rabid Trump-Haters should be able to acknowledge that. Keep up the good Mr. Trump!

 

[Reasonable]

Yet Trump's approval ratings keep dropping. Have you figured out why yet?

 

[Dschrute3]

Like CONservatives did?

Rooting against America: Beck, other conservatives cheer elimination of Chicago's Olympic bid

Beck: "Oh, it's so sweet" that Chicago's bid failed; "savor this moment."

Lou Dobbs: "On today's broadcast, the IOC just says 'no' to Chicago! As the Drudge Report says 'The Ego Has Landed.' "


Breitbart website: "It is kind of like the world community saying to President Obama, 'Not only no, but Hell No.' "


Limbaugh: For those "upset that I sound gleeful -- I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy."

RedState.com's Erickson: "World rejects Barack Obama. ... Hahahahaha."

Weekly Standard blog post reportedly said "[c]heers erupt[ed] at" magazine in response to Chicago losing bid.


Malkin: "Goodbye, 'Yes We Can.' Hello, 'No, You Can't.' "

You doing the same thing, doesn't make it right. It only makes you a bitter hypocrite.

Got it Cupcake don't understand most of US on the left oppose Cheeto's POLICIES where the right seemed to focus on that "Kenyan Moooslim" guy we elected over his policies!

BTW, Cheering a major US city losing a GREAT opportunity to host an Olympics is NOTHING like opposing the Cheeto and therefore there is no hypocrisy Cupcake

wrong on all accounts. Most of America approves of what Trump is doing.

Liar.

for the final time, those same polls said Hillary was going to win. She lost, they lied.

Yup.

 

[Reasonable]

This is great news for American Workers. Even rabid Trump-Haters should be able to acknowledge that. Keep up the good Mr. Trump!

When American worker's children and families start to suffer health problems due to the safety and health regulations Trump is obliterating and they lose their health care with the upcoming Trumpcare disaster, American workers are going to be mad as hell and take it out on the GOP next year.

 

[Dschrute3]

This is great news for American Workers. Even rabid Trump-Haters should be able to acknowledge that. Keep up the good Mr. Trump!

When American worker's children and families start to suffer health problems due to the safety and health regulations Trump is obliterating and they lose their health care with the upcoming Trumpcare disaster, American workers are going to be mad as hell and take it out on the GOP next year.

Well, that's just more sad bitter wishful thinking on your part. You truly hope all those awful things happen. Too much Politics for ya, kid. Maybe it's time you take a break from it for awhile. You're allowing your partisan hate to consume you. Take a break. Take care.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but repeal is not politics.

 

[Redfish]

You doing the same thing, doesn't make it right. It only makes you a bitter hypocrite.

Got it Cupcake don't understand most of US on the left oppose Cheeto's POLICIES where the right seemed to focus on that "Kenyan Moooslim" guy we elected over his policies!

BTW, Cheering a major US city losing a GREAT opportunity to host an Olympics is NOTHING like opposing the Cheeto and therefore there is no hypocrisy Cupcake

wrong on all accounts. Most of America approves of what Trump is doing. Chicago did a shitty job of presenting itself to the Olympic committee. Its not really a partisan issue. Obama made it partisan by inserting himself into it------and then losing. So he created the link that branded him a loser. Much like "if you like your plan you can keep it".

Obama's policies were good for radical muslims, illegal aliens, and America haters. Most of America understands that, some, like you, never will.

Trump was at 34% approval as of yesterday
Seems most do not approve of what he is doing

how many people in that "poll" where do they live? what party do they claim? are they on welfare, illegals, hollyloonies? A poll of 1000 democrats doesn't prove anything. We already know that pollsters lie. Remember the polls that said Hillary would win a landslide? the ones that said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

these are not polls, they are propaganda.

Google...."Random Poll"

I understand what "random" means. The polls do not take a random sample. The use a very carefully selected sample which they claim proportionally represents every demographic in the country and accurately reflects their views.

Sooooooooo, out of a polling sample of 1000 americans (out of 330,000,000). How many in that 1000 represent wheat farmers in North Dakota, shrimpers in Louisiana, cotton field workers in Mississippi, or casino workers in Nevada? I would be willing to bet that in most samples there are no people from ND, LA, MS, or NV. So there is zero chance that their views are proportionately represented. The sample size is simply much too small.

So whats left? Pay me to do a poll and I will get you the results you want. That's what this is all about------------propaganda.

 

[Redfish]

wrong on all accounts. Most of America approves of what Trump is doing. Chicago did a shitty job of presenting itself to the Olympic committee. Its not really a partisan issue. Obama made it partisan by inserting himself into it------and then losing. So he created the link that branded him a loser. Much like "if you like your plan you can keep it".

Obama's policies were good for radical muslims, illegal aliens, and America haters. Most of America understands that, some, like you, never will.

Trump was at 34% approval as of yesterday
Seems most do not approve of what he is doing

how many people in that "poll" where do they live? what party do they claim? are they on welfare, illegals, hollyloonies? A poll of 1000 democrats doesn't prove anything. We already know that pollsters lie. Remember the polls that said Hillary would win a landslide? the ones that said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

these are not polls, they are propaganda.

And your source is ..... ?

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

Liar.

for the final time, those same polls said Hillary was going to win. She lost, they lied.

The polls predicted she would win the popular vote by about 3 percentage points and she won it by about 2 points. The polls were accurate. Your lies are not.

wrong, the polls said she would win the ELECTION. She lost, they either lied or were flawed.

I fully understand how the pollsters manipulate the mathematic laws of statistics. They claim that they create a sample that proportionally represents all of the demographics in a population of 330 million. That is simply impossible and anyone who believes that is naïve.

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

 

[rightwinger]

Trump was at 34% approval as of yesterday
Seems most do not approve of what he is doing

how many people in that "poll" where do they live? what party do they claim? are they on welfare, illegals, hollyloonies? A poll of 1000 democrats doesn't prove anything. We already know that pollsters lie. Remember the polls that said Hillary would win a landslide? the ones that said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

these are not polls, they are propaganda.

And your source is ..... ?

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

 

[rightwinger]

for the final time, those same polls said Hillary was going to win. She lost, they lied.

The polls predicted she would win the popular vote by about 3 percentage points and she won it by about 2 points. The polls were accurate. Your lies are not.

wrong, the polls said she would win the ELECTION. She lost, they either lied or were flawed.

I fully understand how the pollsters manipulate the mathematic laws of statistics. They claim that they create a sample that proportionally represents all of the demographics in a population of 330 million. That is simply impossible and anyone who believes that is naïve.

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

 

[Redfish]

how many people in that "poll" where do they live? what party do they claim? are they on welfare, illegals, hollyloonies? A poll of 1000 democrats doesn't prove anything. We already know that pollsters lie. Remember the polls that said Hillary would win a landslide? the ones that said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

these are not polls, they are propaganda.

And your source is ..... ?

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

 

[Redfish]

The polls predicted she would win the popular vote by about 3 percentage points and she won it by about 2 points. The polls were accurate. Your lies are not.

wrong, the polls said she would win the ELECTION. She lost, they either lied or were flawed.

I fully understand how the pollsters manipulate the mathematic laws of statistics. They claim that they create a sample that proportionally represents all of the demographics in a population of 330 million. That is simply impossible and anyone who believes that is naïve.

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

 

[rightwinger]

And your source is ..... ?

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

 

[rightwinger]

wrong, the polls said she would win the ELECTION. She lost, they either lied or were flawed.

I fully understand how the pollsters manipulate the mathematic laws of statistics. They claim that they create a sample that proportionally represents all of the demographics in a population of 330 million. That is simply impossible and anyone who believes that is naïve.

National polls predict national voting, not electoral voting. Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding on the topic you discuss. State by state polling also did not predict Hillary would win. From memory, I recall the CNN electoral poll was most favorable to Hillary and their last one indicated she still did not have the 270 votes needed to lock up the election. Even then, the state polling accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states. And the 3 they missed were all swing states which were predicted could go either way.

Now, for the 3rd time.... what's your source...?

During the 2016 election, national polls were conducted daily. Final polls showed Hillary leading by 3% with her lead dropping

State polls, especially in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had not been conducted in weeks and did not keep up with recent trends (Comey email release)

So are you now making the claim that the polls said that Hillary would lose? Seriously?

No, I am making the point that the polls lagged the late swing to Trump because of the Comey email bullshit
While national polls showed the swing, state polls were not conducted that close to the election

maybe, but they still showed her winning the election up to Nov 8th.

So Comey cost Hillary the election but today he is a hero of the democrats???????????????? If she had won, she would have fired him just like Trump did, probably sooner. Remember there was an open investigation of her at the time. Would you libs and the media have then screamed "she fired him to stop the investigation"? No, of course not. Because with you on the left its all about politics, not complying with our laws.

Yes they did
And the totally missed the recent shift in Midwest states

 

[Faun]

And your source is ..... ?

Unlike you, I actually read the back up data on polls. Almost all of them sample 1000 people or less (out of 330,000,000)-------statistically meaningless with such a tiny sample size (source stat 101), they also oversample democrats, big city dwellers, and the people on the west and east coasts.

draw your own conclusions, do the research, if you really care and are not just a partisan parrot.

A poll of 1000 people is statistically relevant within its margin for error

Not out of a population of 330,000,000. To be statistically relevant the sample needs to be at least 5% of the population. I understand how they try to get around this--------but its bullshit.

Not even close
A sample of 1000 is accurate plus or minus three percent

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.