Poll: Obama 'worst president' since World War II

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Now I want to just keep posting because you clearly like me so much, and it's a little flattering.

 

Though I should mention - neither my sexual orientation or my sexual identity is open to you.

 

Hate to disappoint you

honestly dude I could care less about who you choose to diddle or not diddle or anything remotely connected to your sexual orientation, don't mean to be hurtful or rejectful, I just aint interested  

 

Also all this talk about sexual orientation you all left off one very glaring choice.

 

Asexual 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Nature Boy Flair

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

honestly dude I could care less about who you choose to diddle or not diddle.

 

Also all this talk about sexual orientation you all left off one very glaring choice.

 

Asexual 

Couldn't*

 

Let's not move an off topic conversation from one thread to another thread (I apologise for bringing it up as a joke). But for the record - that still fits in the definition of sexual orientation, and you can still choose to identify differently despite your actual orientation being asexual.

 

Seriously though...sorry I brought it up. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by bcking

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

Sorry bud, but that's a bridge too far for me. I ain't coming with you...

Haha.. that's fine.

I'm just not a huge fan of Gerrymandering. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Haha.. that's fine.

I'm just not a huge fan of Gerrymandering. 

I'm not a huge fan of several aspects of our political system, but unfortunately none of them is cheating.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

18 minutes ago, bcking said:

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi
Duplicate post...

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm not a huge fan of several aspects of our political system, but unfortunately none of them is cheating.

Abusing statistics to diminish ones voting power isn't cheating? 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Abusing statistics to diminish ones voting power isn't cheating? 

The dems here in GA Gerrymandered for years . They created 2 super black majority districts that ran from the mountains to the coast and carved black pockets out all along the way. They ensured 2 blacks got elected to congress. This happened in many places all over the country.

 

what they didn't count on was that by removing the black vote from so many districts, almost every other district in the state went republican. 

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

15 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The dems here in GA Gerrymandered for years . They created 2 super black majority districts that ran from the mountains to the coast and carved black pockets out all along the way. They ensured 2 blacks got elected to congress. This happened in many places all over the country.

 

what they didn't count on was that by removing the black vote from so many districts, almost every other district in the state went republican. 

 

 

Oh yes I know.. both parties do it to help save resources. I think it's absolutely despicable.

The people in charge of stopping such actions belong to the one of the two major parties so constituents can't even vote thier way out of this catch-22. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

Why did anyone care about this poll in the first person when it was originally posted and suggested Obama was the worst?

 

Again the question may not be directed exactly at you. But clearly some people were quite happy with the results that fit their viewpoint, despite it having always been a "popularity contest" due to being a poll of people.

I posted it because so many in this forum (left-leaning) seem to just adore polls.  Personally, I think polls are of almost zero value.  Why?  Because I have never been asked to participate in one in my lifetime.  And when I ask those around me, no one ever has either.  So WHO is taking these polls?  Who is answering the questions?  Is the polled group truly random, or do they fit a specific demographic?  

If memory serves me correctly, my family used to get some of those “cold calls” way back in the 60’s and 70’s.  Perhaps with the advent of cell phones, that is less common today.  But still the fact remains that MY vote has never been cast, which I find unusual, given my age.  Makes me suspicious of the methods being used.  And the sample groups.  And... well, everything about the polls that aren’t published.

 

As for the snopes.com link above, and with no offense meant towards any members here, but if anyone is still using snopes, they should probably re-think their methods for fact checking.  I know I only post a snopes “fact check” if two or more OTHER sources corroborate it; and even then, I tend to quote one of the other sources.  

For those not in the know, the family of snopes is getting a divorce, and there are court-ordered gag orders in effect.  Now why would that be, if snopes was a bastion of truth and honesty?  Here’s but one snippet of one article on the matter:

 

Quote

Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it's secret.”

From a pretty reliable source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#423910e6227f 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

About half of which was laughing about how the original premise was flawed and off by about 4 years without the OP noticing.

 

But on the topic of pointlessness, please continue to add up my post count in threads for me. I'm flattered.

You sure do “assume” a lot for a supposedly well-educated person (at times).  SMH

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Oh yeah I forgot..silly me. 

If you can't win an election .. why not just cheat? 

So now that you don’t like your president, you want to slam the method for electing presidents that has been used for over 200 years???

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Now I want to just keep posting because you clearly like me so much, and it's a little flattering.

 

Though I should mention - neither my sexual orientation or my sexual identity is open to you.

 

Hate to disappoint you

Don’t worry, you have the freedom to choose.  Thank God we live in America, eh?

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You sure do “assume” a lot for a supposedly well-educated person (at times).  SMH

I'd love to see you rationalize using a 4 year old link and a present tense verb...that's called backpedaling.

 

"It seems Americans are smelling the coffee, now that it’s too late..."

 

That is not something you say in relation to a 4 year old poll. 

 

But please, do continue to try to argue that you knew what you were posting...

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

18 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So now that you don’t like your president, you want to slam the method for electing presidents that has been used for over 200 years???

I never liked the president, even before he started his racist birther campaign. 

 

He's an egotistical jerk, that is using the office to pad his pockets.

 

200 year old? 

Sounds outdated lol

Edited June 26, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[bcking 3,157]

24 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

As for the snopes.com link above, and with no offense meant towards any members here, but if anyone is still using snopes, they should probably re-think their methods for fact checking.  I know I only post a snopes “fact check” if two or more OTHER sources corroborate it; and even then, I tend to quote one of the other sources.  

Do you have any specific issues with snopes article on this subject? 

 

Because it is absolutely accurate. The 2014 poll has shown up again in the last common months with people acting as if it is "new" (including some even saying "New poll" or something similar). It's not new, and there is a newer version with different results.

 

Honestly though this case really doesn't even need any "fact checking". As I said before - The date of the article was literally in the URL. You don't need a fact checker to realize this isn't new information.