Record Turnout Of Hispanic Voters Looks LIke They May Cause A Landslide Win For Clinton

a reply to: UKTruth

That is the key point, not a single interview and a single source he misinterpreted.

The point I was making had to do with things Trump has said. So yes, it is the point.

You're welcome to make a different one.

They've also been oversampling Democrats. So what's your point?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: UKTruth
Explains a lot. Delusion of grandeur and projection on to others. Common in control freaks

Nice try but, no.

People have biases. That doesn't make me better than anyone else. I have my own but not about this.

So who made you the arbiter of other people's bias? Who made you responsible for the 'official, non biased' interpretation of what Trump meant?

a reply to: UKTruth

So you still have not realized that worldstarcountry said something that took his discussion with Lucid Lunacy on a tangent?

a reply to: Lucidparadox

This clearly isn't the case. Remember, Trump claimed he would get the Latino vote.

originally posted by: UKTruth
So who made you the arbiter of other people's bias?

You just said that you felt it was a good thing for him to say. You said it.

Who made you responsible for the 'official, non biased' interpretation of what Trump meant?

Who said I was the 'official, non biased' interpreter of what Trump meant?

I said that my interpretation, unlike those of others, is unbiased. Nothing more, nothing less.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: UKTruth

That is the key point, not a single interview and a single source he misinterpreted.

The point I was making had to do with things Trump has said. So yes, it is the point.

You're welcome to make a different one.

I know - you were raising a completely irrelevant point.
I'm not sure I have met anyone who has never misinterpreted data at some point in their lives.

The underlying point Trump was actually addressing is a real problem - according to the data freely available.

If you raise an important point and one (of many) sources you use is misinterpreted, does that make the underlying point invalid? Sounds like nit picking to discredit him as opposed to addressing the bigger issue.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: UKTruth
So who made you the arbiter of other people's bias?

You just said that you felt it was a good thing for him to say. You said it.

Who made you responsible for the 'official, non biased' interpretation of what Trump meant?

Who said I was the 'official, non biased' interpreter of what Trump meant?

I said that my interpretation, unlike those of others, is unbiased. Nothing more, nothing less.

So its anyone who disagrees with you who is biased? Back to that fallacy.
I do feel it was a good thing for him to say, but I am not running my interpretations of how many people he meant by 'some' to conclude he meant the 'minority'. He said 'some'. So he meant 'some'.

originally posted by: UKTruth
So its anyone who disagrees with you who is biased? Back to that fallacy.

No, anyone who shows that they are biased through their statements is. I fail to see how someone saying that they are for or against something can be fallacious.

I do feel it was a good thing for him to say, but I am not running my interpretations of how many people he meant by 'some' to conclude he meant the 'minority'. He said 'some'. So he meant 'some'.

Makes no difference. The main point is that you thought it was good. That is what bias means. Feeling that something is good or bad. Biased for or biased against.

originally posted by: daskakik
The main point is that you thought it was good. That is what bias means. Feeling that something is good or bad. Biased for or biased against.

Nope. Not necessarily anyway, it simply shows a leaning, irrespective of good and bad because good and bad are subjective.

"The girl showed a bias toward Beyoncé, even though the girl thought some of her music sucked"

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: UKTruth
So its anyone who disagrees with you who is biased? Back to that fallacy.

No, anyone who shows that they are biased through their statements is. I fail to see how someone saying that they are for or against something can be fallacious.

I do feel it was a good thing for him to say, but I am not running my interpretations of how many people he meant by 'some' to conclude he meant the 'minority'. He said 'some'. So he meant 'some'.

Makes no difference. The main point is that you thought it was good. That is what bias means. Feeling that something is good or bad. Biased for or biased against.

Hate to burst your bubble, but no, that is not what bias means. It would only be bias if it was unfair and personal opinion influenced my judgement.

the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment

So, now you got that wrong...you claimed I was biased and you were not. Simply, this means to have any validity you need to show how I am being unfair and you are not.

I'm waiting...

a reply to: alphabetaone

Not in this context.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: alphabetaone

Not in this context.

See above - you need to brush up on your understanding and definitions of words...
You have a couple of proof points to provide.

chop chop...

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not sure I have met anyone who has never misinterpreted data at some point in their lives.

Good grief!

Can you downplay it even more!?

Trump said the immigrants were rapists. When called on this he gave his source. His source didn't support his claims at all.

The underlying point Trump was actually addressing is a real problem - according to the data freely available.

According to the data he used to justify his points, it shows those immigrants are the victims of that rape that's occurring.

If you raise an important point and one (of many) sources you use is misinterpreted, does that make the underlying point invalid?

But his point was that the immigrants were the rapists. So if his source doesn't support his point (which it doesn't), he should have given a different source that did.

originally posted by: ketsuko
They've also been oversampling Democrats. So what's your point?

Oversampling Democrats?

What makes you think that? Because they poll more Democrats than Republicans?

You know there's more Democrats in the country than Republicans right?

You also know that there was a much larger turnout in the Democratic Primary than the Republican one right?

Lastly, you know that Clinton's popular vote numbers vs a much tougher candidate in Bernie sanders beat Trumps popular vote totals against a guy who didnt know what a basketball hoop was right?

Look at the primary numbers... The Republican turnout was weak..

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Lucidparadox

This clearly isn't the case. Remember, Trump claimed he would get the Latino vote.

Totally right, when running for office a candidate should totally just announce that he means to throw an entire sector of the electorate under the bus like Clinton did by calling half the population deplorable.

What was he supposed to do? "Then there are the Latinos and we're losing them, so who cares about them ..."

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Trump was running against more candidates right up until the end too.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Hate to burst your bubble, but no, that is not what bias means. It would only be bias if it was unfair and personal opinion influenced my judgement.

No, it could be fair and still be a bias.

And if you expect us to believe that personal opinion didn't go into it then, that would be another, no

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not sure I have met anyone who has never misinterpreted data at some point in their lives.

Good grief!

Can you downplay it even more!?

Trump said the immigrants were rapists. When called on this he gave his source. His source didn't support his claims at all.

The underlying point Trump was actually addressing is a real problem - according to the data freely available.

According to the data he used to justify his points, it shows those immigrants are the victims of that rape that's occurring.

If you raise an important point and one (of many) sources you use is misinterpreted, does that make the underlying point invalid?

But his point was that the immigrants were the rapists. So if his source doesn't support his point (which it doesn't), he should have given a different source that did.

It's not the only source Trump has used (by a long way).
Why not concentrate on the actual problem as opposed to a Trump gotcha moment?

Is there a problem or not?

originally posted by: UKTruth
See above - you need to brush up on your understanding and definitions of words...
You have a couple of proof points to provide.

chop chop...

No I don't.