Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,626 Excellent

About attrayant

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Bangkok, Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

7,149 profile views
  1. Just out of curiosity, what info would you like to see?
  2. Just because you don't personally understand how statistics works, does not mean it does not work. Do you understand how photosynthesis works? No?? Then I guess it must be hogwash too. It worked just fine, if you understand what the results actually said. From 538: "the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968." Polling organizations sampled the general population, and said there was a substantial lean towards Clinton in the popular vote. Looking at the final popular vote (which is what all the polls were sampling), how can you say that it "certainly did not work"? Maybe you're referring to the final electoral tally? Unfortunately, nobody polled the electoral college. A projection was made, giving Trump a 28.6% chance of winning. Even with only a 1% chance of winning, that still means there was a chance that he would win. And just like any other business, their reputations are at stake. If they consistently screw up in their polling results, they'll go out of business. I don't dispute that. There are a lot of ignorant people who, when they don't understand something, prefer to just believe it's not true.
  3. Professional polling organizations know how to properly weight their poll responses to ensure they get a sample that accurately represents the population as a whole. It's never a perfect representation, which is why polls have margins of error. http://www.applied-survey-methods.com/weight.html
  4. Where did you get this? I went to the Reuter's story and then into the polling data. I saw no mention of specific states.
  5. Oh look, Donald Trump is lying again. Vox: It sure looks like Trump is lying about his agreement with Kim Jong Un "Well, here’s what the joint agreement says on that: 'Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.' It shortly afterward adds a vital caveat: '[T]he DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.' That is not the same as Kim agreeing to 'a total denuclearization of North Korea.' Not at all. Not even close."
  6. I don't know what "news sunshine" is. Maybe you should step away from the keyboard until tomorrow when you're sober. To reiterate, what happened in 2014 is not like what is happening now. There is a link in that last sentence so you can learn a bit about what went on four years ago. You'll see nothing about the president using infants as bargaining chips, or indefinite separations of the very young.
  7. This was not happening in 2014. Your ignorance and deceit tells all.
  8. Did you notice that oil-rich Brunei is in that list ranked at #4 with a population of only 300 thousand. If Washington DC and its 700,000 people were a country, it would be right in that same part of the graph with a per capita GDP of around $73,000. This is called lying with statistics. Come on, get real. In the context of this discussion about countries that have available capital and resources to "help their own people". The claim was made that the US has to choose between helping its own, and helping asylum seekers. If we make a list of countries that have the wealth and resources to do that, Brunei would be nowhere on that list. If it were, you'd see a massive flood of immigrants rushing there to take advantage of life in Brunei - a county with porous borders and where it is apparently raining money and there are no poor people. But they're not; I wonder why? It sounds like you're getting closer to agreeing that the USA is one of the richest countries on the planet. Excellent improvement.
  9. Hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement I quoted. Read in context, please. They "allow" it? Are they supposed to be like North Korea and not let people out of the country? This is a recent problem, but Mexico has been around for more than 200 years. I agree; seems Trump will do anything for votes. Even hold kids hostage. The media is preventing Trump from telling Kirstjen Nielsen to stop putting children in concentration camps? How, exactly?
  10. You're right, it's in the top SIX! I hereby amend my statement to read "one of the richest".
  11. It's not a binary choice. It doesn't need to be one or the other. We are the richest country in the world. We can take care of our own and show concern for others at the same time.
  12. It's not my concern if my neighbor beats and sodomizes his children. I'm busy taking care of my own kids. Right? I don't understand how somebody can switch off their empathy for suffering children just because they're on the other side of an imaginary line. Heartless.
  13. No, we can stop now because you just dropped the ball by bringing back a butt-hurt opinion article from 2014. Politifact was mean to me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
  14. Let's see. In the past 24 hours, the administration has claimed that the child/family border separation issue is: 1. not happening 2. an effective deterrent 3. justified by the bible 4. the democrat's fault And their base constituents are brain-dead enough to eat it all up with a spoon.
  15. Are you calling for the policy to stop? It's not quite clear from your post how you feel about it, aside from the childish "but YOU started it!" claim.