How Selfish Can Omama Be

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Yes I'm 5. I excelled in cut/paste in preschool.

How do you explain that you claimed FL as "Likely Obama" when your own poll disputes this and you cite .05% of the state (all in a solid blue county) as your basis?

Oh, and for the record, you called me a "Moronic Idiot" before I called you Sugartits. So there's that. Plus I wound up making Hossy throw up, which I regret.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ent-charities/

Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States
Conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/1...united-states/

Exploding the myth that conservatives give more to charity than liberals
A few years ago, several of our Applesauce regulars cited a study authored by Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks to support their argument that political conservatives donate more to charity than their liberal counterparts.

But now there’s a NEW STUDY showing not only that charitable contributions are roughly equal among liberals and conservatives but also that Brooks’ methodology was faulty.

Related posts:
Exploding the myth that Romney pays more of his income in taxes and charity than does Obama
Study shows that conservatives are more fearful than liberals
Research suggests that liberals have thicker brains than conservatives
Why are liberals so much better than conservatives at political satire?
Study: Higher levels of education affect minds of liberals and conservatives differently

I'm skeptical but if that is what the new study shows then it is possible the other studies were wrong. We will see what future studies say.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Yes I'm 5. I excelled in cut/paste in preschool.

How do you explain that you claimed FL as "Likely Obama" when your own poll disputes this and you cite .05% of the state (all in a solid blue county) as your basis?

For the fourth time - please, read slowly and carefully:

I said that Obama will win Florida. Why? The trending in Florida is Romney falling, Obama rising. Multiple polls. I even used your Rasmussen poll that shows this trend is true over the past five days (which I linked to).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

How could you possibly know how charitable people are? Who talks about how much they donate, unless they are trying to impress someone?

There are obviously plenty of acquaintances of mine whose charitable habits I know nothing about. I'm not denying that. But there are plenty of acquaintances that I talk about that kind of stuff with. I know which of my friends give away a lot of money and which ones don't. I know which ones give to political parties and candidates too.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

For the fourth time - please, read slowly and carefully:

I said that Obama will win Florida. Why? The trending in Florida is Romney falling, Obama rising. I even used your Rasmussen poll that shows this trend is true over the past five days (which I linked to).

No, you didn't. You said that Obama was most likely based on the 538 or whatever the NYT guy said. I disputed that by presenting the 538 data.

Then you brought out the gmu.edu site which only represented 50,000 votes in in the most left county in the state.

And you got called out.

And you can't respond. You misrepresented yourself. I understand. passion can run wild at times. I don't hold it against you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

No, you didn't. You said that Obama was most likely based on the 538 or whatever the NYT guy said. I disputed that by presenting the 538 data.

Trends cover the data over time - not one day. Yes, all polls have Obama trending up in Florida 538 is a "poll of polls", an aggregator. TPM is an aggregator. You linked Rasmussen, one of the polls the aggregators use.

All polls show Obama trending up in Florida, and Romney down. Yes - even though in a snapshot of today Romney may be ahead by a half a point to a point.

Then you brought out the gmu.edu site which only represented 50,000 votes in in the most left county in the state.

And you got called out.

Uh, no. You falsely accused me of somehow secretly getting my hands on voters data (I never said that). I then told you that you clearly do not know how the results data on early voting is made available to the public, and linked to the site so you can learn.

You refused to even move down to the applicable part of the site, instead choosing to link to various other information media links at the top and railing on about Huffington Post.

Yeah - big difference in understanding about polls and websites between you and I.

Now - you say Romney will win Florida. Do you have anything other than a one-day snapshot poll of him being barely ahead to support your contention? Because the trends all have Obama overcoming him and winning the state.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are obviously plenty of acquaintances of mine whose charitable habits I know nothing about. I'm not denying that. But there are plenty of acquaintances that I talk about that kind of stuff with. I know which of my friends give away a lot of money and which ones don't. I know which ones give to political parties and candidates too.

I call bullsh.it. First off, I've never had a discussion with my friends about how much they donate to charity. I don't care. It's none of my business.

Secondly, you just have no idea unless you actually see the donations and/or their checking accounts.

You're talking out of your ass here. It's obvious. You started with "most liberals" and now you're kind of admitting you really have no idea.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

You refused to even move down to the applicable part of the site, instead choosing to link to various other information media links at the top and railing on about Huffington Post.

Yeah - big difference in understanding about polls and websites between you and I.

Now - you say Romney will win Florida. Do you have anything other than a one-day snapshot poll of him being barely ahead to support your contention? Because the trends are have Obama overcoming him and winning the state.

Again, not true. Your NYT poll disguised as some "patriarch of election virtue" proved your assertions false.

I then waded through the propaganda link you provided (again disputing you ridiculous claim above) to expose the fact that your analysis was based on early results of only .05% of the population of the state, in ONE county, that has been historically left leaning.


You, in turn, called me a liar, drunk, idiot etc. for pointing that fact out.

Hysterically funny, since anyone who actually knows me is laughing their guts out at this.

Hope you feel better about yourself, if that's what gets you through the day.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a different analysis of the data:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...-the-landslide

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Again, not true. Your NYT poll disguised as some "patriarch of election virtue" proved your assertions false.

How? You are now confusing two different things. Yes, 538 has always had Obama above 270 votes (I gave the link, you never looked at it).

Yes, 538 aggregate trending has Obama moving up in Florida, Romney down. As does TPM. As does your Rasmussen poll. As does several other polls.

BTW, your Rasmussen poll you posted gives Obama a massive victory - even bigger than 538.

And 538/Nate Silver is extremely well-respected and accurate in polling, even if you've never heard of him and want to dismiss him out of hand (which is laughable)

Dude - you just posted an opinion article by Karl Rove. Talk about "not objective" ! LOL !

I then waded through the propaganda link you provided (again disputing you ridiculous claim above) to expose the fact that your analysis was based on early results of only .05% of the population of the state that has been historically left leaning.

Dude - you are just not following along You are confusing electoral votes nationally with Florida win.

You, in turn, called me a liar, drunk, idiot etc. for pointing that fact out.

No, I asked if you were drunk because you are clearly not following the conversation. And you called me liar - you might look back at your posts.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I call bullsh.it. First off, I've never had a discussion with my friends about how much they donate to charity. I don't care. It's none of my business.

Secondly, you just have no idea unless you actually see the donations and/or their checking accounts.

You're talking out of your ass here. It's obvious. You started with "most liberals" and now you're kind of admitting you really have no idea.

I ask friends to donate to charities that I'm involved with. They will sometimes ask me to donate to charities that they are involved with. What is surprising or unusual about that?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Swing states are states that are not "safe" for a candidate. Illinois is obviously "safe Obama" and Texas is "safe Romney".

Florida has had overwhelming (greater than 2008 numbers) early turnout, nearly all Democratic. Florida is in "likely Obama" column.

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com page also has excellent, accurate analysis of swing states. www.fivethirtyeight.com

Originally Posted by Riot

Plus, now Florida is trending solidly Obama based upon actual early voting results with massive Democratic turnout greater than 2008. Obama already is leading the early voting by 60%, which banks a great lead for him.

Originally Posted by Riot

I suggest you read the article accompanying the polling on the site I listed, so you understand polling.

Obama is at about 80% right now to win.

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't crown Obama anything - the professional pollsters crowned him.

In Florida, Dems currently hold the advantage in early voting, 43% to 41%.

Originally Posted by Riot

For Rude: click and learn. Bumbleballs

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you drunk?

That is not a HuffPo blog. The web address has the edu. suffix.

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html Try again to use the clicky key.

BTW - you might go back and look at the Rasmussen polling information you posted - it gives Obama 332 to Romney 206 vote Obama electoral win.

Originally Posted by Riot

:

And 538/Nate Silver is extremely well-respected and accurate in polling, even if you've never heard of him and want to dismiss him out of hand (which is laughable)

hmmmm

[Riot]

I give up.

Let's start again: I say Obama is going to easily win the electoral college, and the popular vote. And I say Obama will win Florida.

I use your Rasmussen polling info for the Florida win. And 538 and TPM aggegators.
And the early voting data on turnout and party.

And yes, I use 538, TPM, and even your Rasmussen polling company, for the national win.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I ask friends to donate to charities that I'm involved with. They will sometimes ask me to donate to charities that they are involved with. What is surprising or unusual about that?

That's a lot different than knowing amounts, no?

Either way, this whole thing gave you a chance to crowbar in that you are involved with charities. We're all impressed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

That's a lot different than knowing amounts, no?

Either way, this whole thing gave you a chance to crowbar in that you are involved with charities. We're all impressed.

If I'm on a charity committee or if I'm just raising money for a charity I will usually know the exact amount that a person gives.

I'm not trying to impress anyone. There are plenty of people out there that do a million times more than me. I could certainly do a lot more than I do.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If I'm on a charity committee or if I'm just raising money for a charity I will usually know the exact amount that a person gives.

I'm not trying to impress anyone. There are plenty of people out there that do a million times more than me. I could certainly do a lot more than I do.

You like to keep moving the goalposts, huh? I guess when you're trying to squirm out of a series of dumb posts it works.

Here's the bottomline....nothing you have said tonight is factual. You have absolutely NO idea the amount your "friends" or anyone else donates unless you have access to their finances. And we both know you don't.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You like to keep moving the goalposts, huh? I guess when you're trying to squirm out of a series of dumb posts it works.

Here's the bottomline....nothing you have said tonight is factual. You have absolutely NO idea the amount your "friends" or anyone else donates unless you have access to their finances. And we both know you don't.

You don't know approximately how much money most of your friends make? I don't know the exact amount that people make but I usually know the ballpark figure.

I will often times know the exact amount that they give to a specific charity. I may not know about other charities they give to. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm full of sh.it.

FTFY

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

FTFY

I am telling you, the people who are constantly yelling how evil the republicans are, are usually not very charitable people or nice people. I'm not talking about your average democrat. I'm talking about the people who are extremely vocal. The ones that I refer to as "angry liberals".

It's not shocking when you think about it. If a person was a really kind and caring person, they would do what they could to help others. They wouldn't be constantly screaming about how evil the other party is. They wouldn't be screaming that George Bush is a war criminal. I'm not saying that they wouldn't prefer the democrats. I'm just saying that they wouldn't be constantly trying to vilify the other party. That is just a defense mechanism.

Am I talking in generalities? Yes, I admit that. But I think that in general it is the truth.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I am telling you, the people who are constantly yelling how evil the republicans are, are usually not very charitable people or nice people. I'm not talking about your average democrat. I'm talking about the people who are extremely vocal. The ones that I refer to as "angry liberals".

It's not shocking when you think about it. If a person was a really kind and caring person, they would do what they could to help others. They wouldn't be constantly screaming about how evil the other party is. They wouldn't be screaming that George Bush is a war criminal. I'm not saying that they wouldn't prefer the democrats. I'm just saying that they wouldn't be constantly trying to vilify the other party. That is just a defense mechanism.

Am I talking in generalities? Yes, I admit that. But I think that in general it is the truth.

Fascinating. By this logic, does that mean that there is a group of "angry conservatives" at the other end of the spectrum that are feeding a third of the starving babies in Africa? Was bush more personally charitable than Clinton?