Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2017, 06:34:31 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 2879
101  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Eharding Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI on: March 13, 2017, 08:50:54 pm
But seriously though. This generation is basically the Hitler youth reincarnated. It's just a fact.
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 08:50:19 pm
BTW, there's no set year obviously when Gen Z ends, much like there isn't when it begins, but by just about any definition anyone born today would still fall into it. If we cut off Millennials around 1998 and then go another 18 years it just ended, if we just stick to 20 year intervals and make Millennials 1980-2000 then it'll still continue for three more years and plenty of Gen Zers haven't even been born yet.

But either way, you are seriously predicting that 90% of white toddlers today are going to grow up to be Nazis because...people most very stupid racist comments on YouTube and there's lots of dumbasses on 4chan posting Pepe memes.

The 90% figure is obviously hyperbole, stop taking Internet forum comments so seriously.

The claim is also that whites nationwide will vote like Mississippi ones. That's a pretty hard statistical fact.

As for the sub sample fallacy, there's no other way to measure generation z at the moment besides a few sketchy polls. But assuming that most of generation z is politically apathetic, than those who are loudest and are the most politically active are gonna be the ones at the polling booths and volunteering on campaigns to get people behind a movement.

I'll take those "sketchy" polls over purely ancedotal stuff and statistical fallacies. I've taken college statistics courses, and I know that your claims are statistically nonsense that would be completely laughed at in academic journal.

There's nothing that shows Generation z youth being more liberal than the previous generation besides the "muh demographics" BS that's been fed to the American public for decades now. The only people out of generation z that are interested in politics are a bunch of nativists and nationalists. Find me a political forum online that caters to these people that's not filled with a bunch of white nationalists and you can't. And in a generation where at least half won't be willing to vote, then those who are noisy and willing to build a movement and push a message will be the ones who will define this generation politically.

Of course those morons aren't more liberal than my generation. There's a far cry between that and claiming that virtually all are Nazis and basing this on the fact that The_Donald has a number of subscribers (of all ages groups) that is less than at least 63 American cities and f[inks]ing YOUTUBE COMMENTS. I'm also laughing at the idea that the Internet wasn't full of racist sh!t until the last five years or so, I mean LOL. You have zero statistical data, just ancedotal stuff, and this wouldn't hold up at all in any type of academic setting.

Why are you so defensive?

You're not looking forward to the fatherland generation?

Because it's statistical garbage. You are trying to extrapolate an entire generation based on YouTube comments and some internet forums, without even verifying ages of the people making those. Do you seriously think The_Donald's 375k subscribers is statistically relevant in regards to the country's population?

Here's how the Nazi filled dorms at the University of Minnesota voted by the way (dorms, so these are almost all younger students, not upper classmen and grad students who tend to live off campus):

Republican      Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence   222   17.21%   
Democratic-Farmer-Labor      Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine   909   70.47%   
Constitution Party      Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley   1   0.08%   
Legal Marijuana Now      Dan R. Vacek and Mark Elworth, Jr.   4   0.31%   
Socialist Workers Party      Alyson Kennedy and Osborne Hart   1   0.08%   
Green Party      Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins   27   2.09%   
American Delta Party      "Rocky" Roque De La Fuente and Michael Steinberg   4   0.31%   
Independence      Evan McMullin and Nathan Johnson   23   1.78%   
Libertarian Party      Gary Johnson and William Weld   83   6.43%   
Write-In      WRITE-IN**   16   1.24%   

Republican      Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence   345   18.73%   
Democratic-Farmer-Labor      Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine   1254   68.08%   
Constitution Party      Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley   1   0.05%   
Legal Marijuana Now      Dan R. Vacek and Mark Elworth, Jr.   5   0.27%   
Socialist Workers Party      Alyson Kennedy and Osborne Hart   2   0.11%   
Green Party      Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins   49   2.66%   
American Delta Party      "Rocky" Roque De La Fuente and Michael Steinberg   1   0.05%   
Independence      Evan McMullin and Nathan Johnson   35   1.90%   
Libertarian Party      Gary Johnson and William Weld   124   6.73%   
Write-In      WRITE-IN**   26   1.41%   
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 08:44:04 pm
BTW, there's no set year obviously when Gen Z ends, much like there isn't when it begins, but by just about any definition anyone born today would still fall into it. If we cut off Millennials around 1998 and then go another 18 years it just ended, if we just stick to 20 year intervals and make Millennials 1980-2000 then it'll still continue for three more years and plenty of Gen Zers haven't even been born yet.

But either way, you are seriously predicting that 90% of white toddlers today are going to grow up to be Nazis because...people most very stupid racist comments on YouTube and there's lots of dumbasses on 4chan posting Pepe memes.

The 90% figure is obviously hyperbole, stop taking Internet forum comments so seriously.

The claim is also that whites nationwide will vote like Mississippi ones. That's a pretty hard statistical fact.

As for the sub sample fallacy, there's no other way to measure generation z at the moment besides a few sketchy polls. But assuming that most of generation z is politically apathetic, than those who are loudest and are the most politically active are gonna be the ones at the polling booths and volunteering on campaigns to get people behind a movement.

I'll take those "sketchy" polls over purely ancedotal stuff and statistical fallacies. I've taken college statistics courses, and I know that your claims are statistically nonsense that would be completely laughed at in academic journal.

There's nothing that shows Generation z youth being more liberal than the previous generation besides the "muh demographics" BS that's been fed to the American public for decades now. The only people out of generation z that are interested in politics are a bunch of nativists and nationalists. Find me a political forum online that caters to these people that's not filled with a bunch of white nationalists and you can't. And in a generation where at least half won't be willing to vote, then those who are noisy and willing to build a movement and push a message will be the ones who will define this generation politically.

Of course those morons aren't more liberal than my generation. There's a far cry between that and claiming that virtually all are Nazis and basing this on the fact that The_Donald has a number of subscribers (of all ages groups) that is less than at least 63 American cities and f[inks]ing YOUTUBE COMMENTS. I'm also laughing at the idea that the Internet wasn't full of racist sh!t until the last five years or so, I mean LOL. You have zero statistical data, just ancedotal stuff, and this wouldn't hold up at all in any type of academic setting.
104  Forum Community / Forum Community / Opinion of Technocratic Timmy on: March 13, 2017, 08:23:32 pm
This guy believes that ~90% of white post-Millennials are alt-right/Nazis and that whites will in the future nationwide vote like whites in Mississippi do today because of stupid comments on YouTube videos and what's generally posted on /pol/.

We have a true political analysis genius here people. Puts even Nate Silver circa 2008 to shame.
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 08:21:54 pm
BTW, there's no set year obviously when Gen Z ends, much like there isn't when it begins, but by just about any definition anyone born today would still fall into it. If we cut off Millennials around 1998 and then go another 18 years it just ended, if we just stick to 20 year intervals and make Millennials 1980-2000 then it'll still continue for three more years and plenty of Gen Zers haven't even been born yet.

But either way, you are seriously predicting that 90% of white toddlers today are going to grow up to be Nazis because...people most very stupid racist comments on YouTube and there's lots of dumbasses on 4chan posting Pepe memes.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 08:18:25 pm
Don't worry the white kids from Generation Z will be voting 90-10 for the GOP.


These kids idolize Hitler and love the "muh high IQ races" talking point. That's why YouTube and internet comment sections have gone from being liberal to Nazi these past 5 years.

You do realize people from this generation who don't post in internet comments exist? And YouTube comments have always been terrible.

They were always terrible politically because they were either far left fringe, libertarian fringe, or crazy conspiratorial.

The white nationalist trend came about right when the gen z teens began to post more and more frequently online between 2013-2017.

How do you know that white supremacists are all teenagers?

I'd say the vast majority of the alt right people in YouTube comment sections are 29 or younger. And they're having a strong influence on 13-19 year olds and are pushing them into a more and more nationalist direction.

You can tell by the way somebody posts and writes. These aren't old men in nursing homes writing these comments with Pepe avatars, it's younger people.

You're committing the subsample fallacy. Even if the majority of people posting those comments are in that age bracket, that doesn't mean the majority of people in that age bracket, much less ALMOST ALL of them agree with them. You're also committing a false dichotomy in assuming that the only people who could write comments like that are either old men in nursing homes or teenagers and that no other age groupings exist, which is clearly not true. You also brought up some statistically terrible examples. The_Donald has 375,000 subscribers...uh OK there's more people than that that live in just my city. r/altright had 15,000 subscribers...there's more HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS in my city alone than that. Those numbers do not disprove that it's a vocal minority. Go take a statistics class, seriously.

For comparison, it's obvious that most blacks in NYC are Democrats. Does that mean that most Democrats in NYC are black?

I don't have a pretty high opinion of the next generation either, but I'm willing to wager that 90% of them aren't going to have their entire outlook and views swayed by YouTube comments.
107  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Christian Socialism and the Religious left on: March 13, 2017, 07:49:07 pm
Gen Z liberals tend to be pretty religious. "Jesus was a socialist" and we need to take care of the poor, etc. whereas the conservatives are more likely to be secular or nononreligous in comparison.

I thought Get Z liberals didn't exist and 90% of them are Nazis?
108  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of LongLiveRock on: March 13, 2017, 12:40:56 pm
No red avatar has explained yet what's good about Schwarzenegger or his 23% approval rating upon leaving office.
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 12:38:17 pm
The MN exit poll had 1636 respondents. That age bracket made up 10%. About 164 respondents. That's a 7.65% margin of error.

But even if accurate that's a far cry from the 90-10 whites everywhere voting like Mississippi claims we're seeing here.
110  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the PKK on: March 13, 2017, 09:07:45 am
So no one besides Parrotguy, Green Line and PiT is bothered by the fact that they're a terrorist organization that has engaged in some ISIS-like massacres?
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 08:57:03 am
TIL every single white high school student now posts on either The_Donald or /pol/.
112  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: So apparently Clinton lost because Putin manipulated Sanders supporters. on: March 13, 2017, 08:48:56 am
You made a thread because you got offended by some random, Huffington Post comments? Okay...
You made a thread because you got offended by some random, Huffington Post comments? Okay...

Yes, I'm a petty person who gets triggered easily. I'm also annoyed at how most democrats blame everybody and everything but Hillary Clinton for the 2016 election result.

That's what this thread is mostly about.

LOL anyone who gets triggered by Huffington Post comments should get off the Internet. This is even more trivial than those "a random local politician somewhere just said something stupid" or "a few students at some university throw a fit about something stupid" threads.
113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 08:45:32 am


This is from 2006.
114  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: So apparently Clinton lost because Putin manipulated Sanders supporters. on: March 13, 2017, 08:43:33 am
Hey guys maybe I should find a video on YouTube with stupid comments and go make a thread hand wringing about it.
115  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Eharding Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI on: March 13, 2017, 08:36:28 am
If those numbers are correct the GOP will need to start making real efforts with minorities within the next 5 years.  Those numbers aren't sustainable long term.

Even if we just assumed that all constituencies remained static and old whites are being replaced by less conservative whites... that would be enough to cause the GOP problems... then you factor in the notion that the minority population is growing and it becomes implausible to continue this.

As others have stated, young whites are almost exclusively neo-Nazi/alt-right. The country will be voting like Mississippi and Alabama in 50 years.
116  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Eharding Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI on: March 13, 2017, 08:27:42 am
Don't worry the white kids from Generation Z will be voting 90-10 for the GOP.


These kids idolize Hitler and love the "muh high IQ races" talking point. That's why YouTube and internet comment sections have gone from being liberal to Nazi these past 5 years.
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New data suggests Hillary won white male/female millennials. on: March 13, 2017, 08:27:01 am
Don't worry the white kids from Generation Z will be voting 90-10 for the GOP.


These kids idolize Hitler and love the "muh high IQ races" talking point. That's why YouTube and internet comment sections have gone from being liberal to Nazi these past 5 years.

You do realize people from this generation who don't post in internet comments exist? And YouTube comments have always been terrible.
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump & Russia effect on 2020 on: March 13, 2017, 12:21:31 am
Oh, Democrats will almost certainly bring it up. I would be surprised if it didn't backfire spectacularly or had any impact, though.
Serious question how is it in RW world foreign powers donating to the Clinton Foundation (which is a charity) is enough to make Hillary a crook but Trump an his team constantly lying about meeting the Russian ambassador, the RNC platform on Ukraine is changed an reportably by Trump's orders, his over the top defense of Putin, an his decade long rumored ties to Russian oligarchs not even raise an eyebrow

-Why are you supporting risking WWIII over Ukraine for no reason? Obama didn't, and, for good reason, neither does the current Prez. Trump's defenses of Putin have the benefit of being true, something not shared by most amateur Putinologist criticisms of the man. This is surprising, as Trump tends to lie about everything, even little and obvious things.

The Clinton Foundation is just the Clintons' version of the Trump Foundation, but on a far larger scale. Both orgs are sleazy to the extreme.

Trump's ties with Russian oligarchs are, firstly, so non-existent as for there to be no Trump Tower in Moscow, second, were encouraged by the U.S. press for the entire decade of the 2000s.

Who's funding this mad Russophobia, anyway? Who benefit from it? It's certainly not good for the U.S.
Why is Putin risking WWIII by murdering civilians in Syria and shooting at US plans? Funny how you think Putin's crimes are not worth mentioning the the US defending Ukraine sovereignty is a crime

-Russia hasn't shot at US planes, enough alternative facts. RU's Syria intervention is no more a crime than the U.S.'s is in Iraq. Both are equally justified by the same circumstances.

Correct, it's a war crime just like that George W. Bush was guilty of in invading Iraq.
119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It is ontologically impossible for "But Trump" to be a reason to be nominated on: March 12, 2017, 11:58:38 pm
     The logic involved is quite specious, but I don't think people seriously mean to imply that underestimating [random celebrity] will guarantee that person wins.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The day mainstream Democrats write off Gabbard is the day she wins the nomination.

Just one example. (Not a celebrity but a candidate many are skeptical of.)
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will any Democratic candidates convert to Islam to get a boost? on: March 12, 2017, 11:45:30 pm
Thing is, he's not wrong. I think that a Muslim Democratic primary candidate for Congress in San Francisco, Portland or Seattle would be a lock in a divided field at this point as long as they were reasonably articulate.

This clearly does not apply at the national level but, where the stakes are lower and every Democratic primary voter is "liberal" in a more traditional sense, having more visibility as a "POC" or as a Muslim is clearly an advantage.

I know it was more than ten years ago now, but Keith Ellison being a Muslim definitely did not boost him. It's probably what kept him under 50% in the primary that he should've run away with (weak opponents and the convention endorsement that gave him access to DFL internal data), and meant that he won the general with a measley 55% with an Independence Party candidate pulling over 20%. Granted his baggage at the time went way beyond simply being a Muslim and everyone quit caring about it once he took office and it became clear he was nothing like that anymore, but it's really tough to argue that anyone specifically voted for him BECAUSE of that and that he got any boost due to that than if he had simply been Generic Black Guy Democratic State Rep.
121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / It is ontologically impossible for "But Trump" to be a reason to be nominated on: March 12, 2017, 11:40:21 pm
Let me explain. Too often lame celebrity candidates or backbenchers are being mentioned, then dismissed by some people, but the retort amounts to essentially "but Trump". "Oh but you probably never thought Trump was going to be nominated too, right?" I've seen this about every celebrity candidate as well as backbenchers like Tulsi Gabbard.

Here's why it's impossible:

Let's first take someone like Kanye West. A lot of people are skeptical of him winning the nomination and making points that it's absurd to expect blacks and Millennials to flock to him. But here's how the argument often goes:

Person A: Kanye West isn't winning the nomination, he's ass kissed Trump a lot, most blacks and Millennials actually don't care about him, he's not going to do any good in fundraising, etc.
Person B: Ah but Trump. Like you seriously never expected him to be nominated or win I bet either, right? Underestimate Kanye West and he wins the nomination just like Trump did.

Now let's imagine someone talking about Mark Zuckerberg:

Person A: Mark Zuckerberg has a nasty reputation, most people don't like how he's ran his product even if they use it, it's tough to imagine any demographics in the Democratic primary who'll rally about him, he's obviously not going to appeal much to Hillary's minorities or Bernie's liberal activists, tough to see a path to nomination for him.
Person B: Ah but Trump. Like you seriously never expected him to be nominated or win I bet either, right? Underestimate Zuckerberg and he wins the nomination just like Trump did.

OK now do you see why this is impossible? Because it's not possible for BOTH Mark Zuckerberg and Kanye West to win the nomination. Clearly the Trump logic isn't going to work for someone.

Also I have to also be a tad skeptical of the logic that Trump's victory means that the Democratic primary in 2020 is guaranteed to turn out the exact same way and that means that the victor of their party's primary is ALWAYS going to be some underestimated celebrity or whatever. And you might say "But no one's saying that", but it's implied, if you can only claim some candidate will be the nominee with "but Trump" and not address any of the other issues brought up about their likeliness, you're effectively claiming this to be the case. That's like saying Obama couldn't be nominated in 2008 because he's black or Mitt Romney couldn't be nominated in 2012 because he's Mormon or Hillary couldn't be nominated in 2016 because she's a woman. Actually it's even dumber than all of those, because someone like Trump was nominated in ONE election while no one in those categories was ever nominated in any election in the past. Every election is different so try to rely on something other than this type of pop culture #analysis.
122  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Dianne Feinstein versus Arnold Schwarzenegger on: March 12, 2017, 11:29:36 pm
Look I despise Feinstein but I have no f[inks]ing clue how any Democrat could possible think Schwarzenegger would be any type of improvement. He was a horrendous Governor who left office with hilariously bad approval ratings, and the idea that he'd be any different than those Republican Senators who openly say bad things about Trump and then rubber stamp all his appointees and agenda is absurd. Can anyone name anything actually positive that he's done?
123  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Eharding Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI on: March 12, 2017, 11:28:08 pm
Hard to vote against a Democratic Jew, but Schwarzenegger is better than Feinstein, so... Undecided for now

A red avatar who thinks Schwarzenegger was good at all (remember he left office with an approval rating of like 20%)
124  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of LongLiveRock on: March 12, 2017, 11:27:46 pm
Hard to vote against a Democratic Jew, but Schwarzenegger is better than Feinstein, so... Undecided for now

LOL.
125  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How America's Right-Wing Fell in Love with Putin and Moscow on: March 12, 2017, 11:15:14 pm
Democrats risk recreating Cold War paranoia and resurrecting McCarthy to get drunk and start subpoenaing all suspected "alt right" affiliated thinkers to appear before another Congressional investigatory committee.

That's EXACTLY what needs to happen. Also with people like Jill Stein.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 2879


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines