2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Tyrath]

As stated before, facts tend to have a liberal bias.

Reality*

[Kaslo]

As stated before, facts tend to have a liberal bias.

Haha I've literally been having my Trump friends dismissing snopes because of some perceived bias... It's terrible.

[Niiro]

I'm not biased, all the information that contradicts my worldview is!

[Xantavia]

With Clinton moving even further ahead in the polls it looks like we're going to be seeing a lot of attempts to claim the election was rigged.

Newsweek already prined off a cover for both Hillary and Trump, of course the Trolls are only showing Hillary's picture and crying foul.

An NBC affiliate was running a test of their election software which was briefly able to be seen, causing the conspiracy theorists to reach for their tin foil hats.

It's like people don't know this is something that has been going on for a long time. Or that we have a famous example already.

[Daydreamer]

Haha I've literally been having my Trump friends dismissing snopes because of some perceived bias... It's terrible.

I had this happen a few days ago. Dude even made a separate comment where he stated he couldn't stop laughing over the fact that I used snopes. I got curious and tried to google snopes validity as a fact checking site and all I could find was that it's surprisingly unbiased and the claims are well checked.

[Zealot]

It's a tried and true tactic that if you can't defeat the facts, cast doubt on the people bringing them forward.

[Mertron]

my most active trumpster on bookface also cries about bias in snopes and politifact, then proceeds to post infowars videos

[Thunder]

under no international ranking is the America considered the best country for women, and crime rates (including sex crimes) in Germany are exponentially lower than they are in the United States.

So I exaggerated, but exponentially? Give me your most biasedly sourced numbers on any crime rate and let's see which exponent fits the bill

But you don't understand man. 'MURICA is best at everything.

But we also need to make it great again.

hope this isn't somehow a jab at me for saying america is great but also being a trump supporter and thinking america needs to be great again - making me a hypocrite

because I'm not a trump supporter. Just want to be honest with how much the president can affect and it's silly to go all doom-and-gloom+leaving-the-country because one won over the other, especially considering the amount of sweeping change there would be needed to get any of his anti-women shit to pass - let alone if he really wants to do any of it. Mainly thinking about his official stance on abortion (are we really worried about federal bans on abortion?) and planned parenthood being 180's from statements he's made years ago, and even once during this year's campaign (and ted cruz tried to get him for the positive things he said about planned parenthood) - are there any other official plateforms trump has that would hurt women in the US?

Not sure what your joke's supposed to mean

[Tyrath]

So I exaggerated, but exponentially? Give me your most biasedly sourced numbers on any crime rate and let's see which exponent fits the bill



hope this isn't somehow a jab at me for saying america is great but also being a trump supporter and thinking america needs to be great again - making me a hypocrite

The second part wasn't at you.

I drifted off towards a general jab at trump supporters off my own comment

[Daydreamer]

It's a tried and true tactic that if you can't defeat the facts, cast doubt on the people bringing them forward.

My favorite part was after he denounced snopes I literally just copy pasted the article that snopes used for its source and got no grief.

[Zealot]

Trump could absolutely get an abortion ban passed. It's foolish to think otherwise. He could do so either by appointing a Justice who would shift a vote 5-4 overruling Roe v. Wade should another abortion case come before the Court (and if Trump makes that appointment, no shortage of such cases would suddenly sprout up in lower courts), or, if Republicans remain a majority, simply passing a bill to gut the general provisions of the Roe v. Wade ruling. Similarly, since we all expect Mike Pence to be the one to actually do most of the governing, there's no reason to think Trump's contradictory statements on the issue over the years would be any reason for the administration not to pursue such bans.

[BerenTebogo]

So I exaggerated, but exponentially? Give me your most biasedly sourced numbers on any crime rate and let's see which exponent fits the bill



hope this isn't somehow a jab at me for saying america is great but also being a trump supporter and thinking america needs to be great again - making me a hypocrite

because I'm not a trump supporter. Just want to be honest with how much the president can affect and it's silly to go all doom-and-gloom+leaving-the-country because one won over the other, especially considering the amount of sweeping change there would be needed to get any of his anti-women shit to pass - let alone if he really wants to do any of it. Mainly thinking about his official stance on abortion (are we really worried about federal bans on abortion?) and planned parenthood being 180's from statements he's made years ago, and even once during this year's campaign (and ted cruz tried to get him for the positive things he said about planned parenthood) - are there any other official plateforms trump has that would hurt women in the US?

Not sure what your joke's supposed to mean

You do realize that exponentially works both ways and that technically, an exponential curve can have behavior that approximates a straight line, right?

Technically he's not even close to wrong.

WORDS.

Spoiler: show

[Mertron]

words are biased

[Thunder]

You do realize that exponentially works both ways and that technically, an exponential curve can have behavior that approximates a straight line, right?

Technically he's not even close to wrong.

WORDS.

Yeah, I know that n^x can = anything and so saying "exponentially worse" or better is always, technically, correct

but we know what it's supposed to mean and it's pretty dishonest when the exponent in reality is something silly like 1.2 instead of what we're all supposed to assume it means - and that there is a HUGE discrepancy. Wouldn't you agree?

it's why instead of saying it's wrong I asked to get any two numbers from crime stats and see which exponent makes the equation true to point out the sillyness of using that word

[Quicklet]

You do realize that exponentially works both ways and that technically, an exponential curve can have behavior that approximates a straight line, right?

Technically he's not even close to wrong.

WORDS.

Spoiler: show

I know I'm nitpicking here (and I'm aware you know the difference) but that's a polynomial.

[archibaldcrane]

So I exaggerated, but exponentially? Give me your most biasedly sourced numbers on any crime rate and let's see which exponent fits the bill

Wikipedia - US: According to a March 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1995 to 2010, the estimated annual rate of female rape or sexual assault declined 58%, from 5.0 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older to 2.1 per 1,000. (aka 210 per 100,000)

Wikipedia - Germany: In 2009, about 7,314 rape cases were reported, a rate of 9 per 100,000 people.

So an exponent of 2.435 or so?

Spoiler: show

yes I understand how to pick apart these stats but you asked for the most biased sources possible so voila

[Zealot]

Science and math have no place in political discussions, people.

[BerenTebogo]

I know I'm nitpicking here (and I'm aware you know the difference) but that's a polynomial.

You're right, I misspoke. X^1.000000001 is exponential. < 1 is polynomial.

See what happens when you stop going to school, kids?

Edit: this is wrt growth rates, not that x^n is A polynomial.

[Andalusian girls]

So I exaggerated, but exponentially? Give me your most biasedly sourced numbers on any crime rate and let's see which exponent fits the bill

it is often difficult to compare crime rates between nations given differences in definition but homicide rates are the closest we get to universality, as The Wire taught us one can fudge most crimes but one cannot disappear a body. Germany's is 0.81 per 100,000 people per year, America's is something like 4.7, or six times higher. and though they are less suited to direct comparison for what it's worth the rape rate in America is three times higher, robbery is twice as high, serious assault is 50% higher.

there is surely some disparity in the numbers between individual studies, but the fundamental picture shown by the data is widespread and supported by everyone from the U.N., to the World Health Organization, to internal releases from the FBI and their German counterparts the BKA. America has far (one might say exponentially) higher violent crime rates than almost any other first world nation. frankly it's kind of surprising this isn't common knowledge.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime

[Niiro]

it is often difficult to compare crime rates between nations given differences in definition

I'm reminded of.....Sweden's (I think?) extremely high rate of rape, which is simply due to the way they categorize various sex crimes under that label.