transplantbillsfan

Who says I'd answer yes? Answer my question first and I'll address yours. Don't be the coward you're accusing me of being and stop resorting to Trumpian tactics ("low IQ" ). This is an open opportunity for you to get me to confess I was wrong.

Wow. You blatantly accuse me of something. I give you the open opportunity to prove it to me and tell you I will 100% admit I was wrong if you find something I directly stated that has been proven wrongf--from the way you were so convinced, it was a softball pitch to a homerun hitter--and you throw out yet another red herring. Not surprising from you. The namecalling was a nice touch. So mad... wonder why that is...

I asked you a question first. Answer it. Can't find anything, can you?

A new national Ipsos/Reuters poll finds that former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump 48% to 35%. While Biden has led Trump in almost every Ipsos poll this year, his advantage this week is the largest in 2020. What's the point: Even though the national polls were accurate in 2016, one of the complaints I hear most often about the polls is that Trump's supporters are either lying or won't talk to pollsters. Polls like Ipsos get around that argument because they use machines (e.g. they're done online) to conduct the interviews. There's no reason to lie to a machine. If Trump was doing significantly better in these non-live interview polls, then these critics of the polls may have a point. ... There's no indication over the last month in the non-live interview polls that Trump supporters last month are merely saying that they are "undecided" right now. Nor is there any reason to think that the surveys are shifting because Democrats are more likely to answer polls these days. Many of these non-live interview pollsters weight by party identification, so they're less susceptible to fewer Republicans responding than have over the long term (like when the race for president was closer). I also checked out the state polling done since the protests began. Averaging the non-live interview polls just like I did for the national polls, I found on average that Biden's margin was 9 points bigger than Hillary Clinton's was. A 9-point shift in Biden's direction nationally from 2016 would give him an 11-point lead nationally, which is around where the national polls have the race.

Where? Fact not fiction please

First of all, you are on Twitter waaAAaaayyy too much. I wonder if you don't see the extreme irony in your criticism of sourcing while providing a tweet by Trump's campaign manager as credible evidence of something. And wrong about what? Dude. You're losing it.

I was? What do you think I said about that exactly? Point out something I said about Trump/Russia that I said that was proven false and I'll gladly admit I was wrong. Provide my own quote though. Let's not make this a supposition based on your own jaded perspectives the way @leh-nerd skin-erd claimed I revere Joe Biden, which was his own leap.

Fear? What is the "fear" you're referring to, exactly? And are you implying the stadium was actually packed when you make your 2nd comment? I guess you think Tulsa Fire Department is out to get Trump?

Yes. It does. I do it all the time and square up when I'm off track or have been just plain wrong. Thanks, though

Except they don't have a margin of error of 12 or more. Where are you getting this? On average they have been within less than 5% for over 2 decades.

@Deranged Rhino can learn what confirmation bias truly is by examining a combination of his last post along with his argument about crowd size being reflective of victory in one of his most recent posts. Dude's going down in flames with his cult lea... I mean Captain... sir we salute you

You guys are nuts. This forum suffers from unparalleled confirmation bias. It's the reason you CONSTANTLY bring up 2016 as proof that polls showing Trump losing are crap. I'm wrong a lot. I can admit that. You guys over here are off the deep end. And your stubborn refusal to admit you might be wrong ALL THE TIME is proof. The original conversation wasn't about you. It was about Trump and Biden. C'mon man... catch up.

#crowdsize!!! amiright @Deranged Rhino?

You'll be waiting awhile for that response. Your post was just a clever rhetorical way to sidestep the actual point. You're trying to start a 2nd discussion without finishing the 1st. I'm sure you can figure out what that actually was. You're a clever fella.

One of the best shows on TV in the last 20 years. "Taste is indefensible." -Oscar Wilde ... especially true for comedy.

Ummmm... are you dense??? Read what you just wrote... think about what you just said... and think about who your current President is. You're clearly one of these:

Did you seriously just say it's good vs evil... and Trump is supposed to be the good?!

This is revealing. You don't actually care if someone has had racist or sexually deviant tendencies. What you care about is the balance or imbalance of how it's covered by the media, which you seem to perceive as evil and too powerful. Strange that you don't actually care about your President and his well-documented history of racism and sexual assault and misconduct. Instead you just care about how the media chose not to cover those documented cases sufficiently enough for you to prove the media didn't have it's own agenda. Do yourself a favor. Do some independent thinking. That doesn't mean ignoring mainstream media... that's pure laziness. Pay attention to mainstream media along with all the underground conspiratorial media you look at, too. Filter out the bias, but even in that biased mainstream media, you're still going to find legitimate reporting of facts, like the fact that even though the devious media didn't cover it enough to your liking, Donald Trump has a decades long history of racism and sexual assault/misconduct.

Well yes. He started with utterly flawed logic, which I pointed out and and was all I responded to. This should be obvious to even you, right? Sure. It can. But his premise was that Trump was squeaky clean up until recently whereas Biden had decades of the things he brought up. That premise is clearly false. This should be obvious to even you, right?

Hmmmm... maybe I'll just go with this for you in the Fall. At least you entertain me, I'll give you that.

In the other post you said I seem frustrated. Just letting you know I didn't read the rest of that post. Why bother after you start with something dumb like that? As for this post, what on Earth makes you think I revere Joe Biden? In dialogue that compares Donald Trump with almost anyone else, it's not that hard to come out on top.

Once per decade? Go back to school. Simple math is not your strong suit. Maybe you're just blinded by love for the orange man.

@leh-nerd skin-erd with another word salad and I can't read past the 1st friggin paragraph where he acts like only now Donald Trump is being accused of being racist or sexual deviant because of those damn liberals when in fact accusations of racism have followed him from the beginnings of building his Empire and the sexual misconduct has spanned DECADES. Trump corporation was investigated by the Justice Department in the mid 70s for refusing rent to tenants "because of race and color." Donald Trump himself has been sued 5 separate times over the span of 30 years for his sexual deviance. Man. Are you really that blinded by your Trump love? "Did any of those accusations stick?" is what I'd guess you're going to ask next... or some form of it. Money buys silence and even obedience. Seems pretty clear with the guy you so admire.

Wait... many of our founding fathers were racist, but more were not? And you know this how? In the same way that you know I'm a racist?