Support NeoGAF

[Sneetches]

That's funny man. My colleague voted for Trump because he promised to end the war in Afghanistan, and now her husband is being sent there in less than 10 days. He's going to be there for 2 years on the front lines and likely die there, leaving behind 3 kids.

That’s not how deployment works, don’t be a liar.

 

[Arkage]

Oh no, not the ‘attack the individual strategy’- straight from the neoliberal playbook.

Larry Sinclair

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/libel-case-against-obamas-gay-accuser-tossed/

Larry Sinclair – who claims he twice engaged in sexual activity and used cocaine with Obama in 1999 when Obama was an Illinois state senator – was accused by Internet publisher Daniel Parisi of making false and damaging statements that led to the demise of Parisi’s porn website, Whitehouse.com, in 2008.

The alleged defamation did not center on Sinclair’s charges of sex and drugs with Obama but on Sinclair’s claim in his 2009 book that the Obama campaign and top adviser David Axelrod had agreed to pay Parisi $750,000 to rig the results of a polygraph test.
Parisi failed to present any evidence that Sinclair’s claim about Axelrod and the Obama campaign was false, wrote U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon in his Feb. 28 opinion dismissing the case.

I do say, his story held up in court old chap!

Let’s next address the Presidential approval ratings.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-higher-823037

As of 2/2018 Trumps approval ratings are 50% per Rasmussen, which this article states are higher than Obamas! Holy shit!

So, the next time you start throwing insults my way, check yourself before you wreck yourself, homie.

Am I currently talking to Alex Jones? Are you going to start telling me about gay frogs? So some backstory for those wondering what the fuck this guy is on about. Sinclair took a polygraph about his alleged gay sex/drug binge with Obama:

What followed were 4 "grueling" hours of questioning. The polygraph was conducted by Dr. Ed Gelb, Former President of the American Polygraph Association. Dr Gelb has performed well over 30,000 tests over his years in the business. Mr. Sinclair was given two separate tests. The first dealt with the sexual allegations, and the second dealt with the drug accusations.

As a result of the first day of testing it was determined that Mr. Sinclair was being deceptive in his answers. The test results were then sent to a second expert for another opinion, and that expert felt, as well, that there was evidence of deception on the part of Mr. Sinclair.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/250869

Ok fine, so he failed the test. Certainly he could just take another polygraph, this time one that's run by a third party! Oh, I guess he's never done that, how unfortunate and surprising! Well let's get that limousine driver that was a witness to the Sinclair-Obama blowjobs!

Whitehouse.com asked Mr. Sinclair on several occasions to put them in contact with the limousine driver that he named for other news organizations earlier, and for them on Friday, that was supposed to corroborate his story. He has still not put them in contact with the limousine driver whom he told Whitehouse.com he stays in constant contact with.

No witnesses either. Darn. Well, as you said, whitehouse.com must have rigged the polygraph due that libel case! Let's look at the court paper for it! (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00897/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00897-4.pdf) Let's see. The whitehouse.gov owner, Daniel Parisi, was trying to sue Sinclair for damages since Sinclair claimed in a self-published book (the best kind!) that Parisi was bought off by the Obama administration to rig the polygraph against him. Parisi claims that this was damaging libel. What is the bar for proving libel in service of damages, according to the judge?

However, when the victim of the alleged defamation is a public figure, as is the case here, the defendant's fault in publishing the statement must amount to more than mere negligence; the defendant must have acted with actual malice, i.e., "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Oh, so for Parisi to win libel damages, he needed evidence that Sinclair was maliciously lying or using "reckless disregard" (i.e. showing no interest if the information is true or not). Well, what was the evidence?

Although Sinclair allegedly received the information regarding the rigged polygraph and the $750,000 payment from an anonymous telephone call, the cited passages of the book state that he took steps to verify the statements made in the phone call and relied on more than just the call itself. Specifically, Sinclair contacted Parisi asking him to confirm or deny the allegations, to which he received no response. Further, Sinclair forwarded the information to a Chicago Tribune reporter, John Crewdson, and asked him to look into the identity of the anonymous tipster. According to the cited passages, Crewdson spoke to the tipster, who repeated the same statements he made to Sinclair.

Oh, so Parisi lost the libel case because he had no evidence that Sinclair was malicious. And since Sinclair asked Parisi, and a reporter, about this anonymous source info, he wasn't necessarily wrecklessly reporting it. Sinclair's actions demonstrated interest in verifying the phone call information, despite it never actually being verified in the end. So this case has nothing to do with Obama allegedly paying off the most well-regarded polygraph administrator in the world. It has to do with whether Parisi could prove Sinclair was being malicious when making this claim in his book.

But wait, Sinclair asked that reporter, John Crewdson, to check out the anonymous tipper! Crewdson must've written a story about it, or at least something! *checks* Hmmm nope. Apparently the tipper told Crewdson the "same thing" as he told Sinclair. Which means the tipper gave Crewdson zero evidence and didn't reveal his identity, it was just another fun story time! How surprising that Crewdson, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, doesn't write salacious articles about polygraph bribery based upon a single anonymous tipper that could just as well be Sinclair using a voice masker on a cell phone.

Next let's address the Presidential approval ratings.

Rasmussen has a long history of strong right-leaning polls, just as other pollers like SurveyMonkey have a long history of strong left-leaning polls. You can read about it here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-rasmussen-reports-biased/ and here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ . To filter out polls that lean too hard left or right in their methods, there are poll aggregates like 538, who do a fantastic job in averaging out polls to give the most accurate number posssible. And if you start claiming 538 is biased, let me be clear, they were one of the only polling places to accurately give Trump a near 30% chance of winning. Even Rasmussen had it in the bag for Hillary like most other polling places (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...entary_by_larry_j_sabato/our_final_2016_picks). Trump's current aggregate rating is 42% approval while Obama's at this time was almost 48%. Nevermind that Trump wins the all-time record for worst approval rating for a President's first year. #Dealwithit "homie"

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

Am I currently talking to Alex Jones? Are you going to start telling me about gay frogs? So some backstory for those wondering what the fuck this guy is on about. Sinclair took a polygraph about his alleged gay sex/drug binge with Obama:


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/250869

Ok fine, so he failed the test. Certainly he could just take another polygraph, this time one that's run by a third party! Oh, I guess he's never done that, how unfortunate and surprising! Well let's get that limousine driver that was a witness to the Sinclair-Obama blowjobs!



No witnesses either. Darn. Well, as you said, whitehouse.com must have rigged the polygraph due that libel case! Let's look at the court paper for it! (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00897/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00897-4.pdf) Let's see. The whitehouse.gov owner, Daniel Parisi, was trying to sue Sinclair for damages since Sinclair claimed in a self-published book (the best kind!) that Parisi was bought off by the Obama administration to rig the polygraph against him. Parisi claims that this was damaging libel. What is the bar for proving libel in service of damages, according to the judge?



Oh, so for Parisi to win libel damages, he needed evidence that Sinclair was maliciously lying or using "reckless disregard" (i.e. showing no interest if the information is true or not). Well, what was the evidence?



Oh, so Parisi lost the libel case because he had no evidence that Sinclair was malicious. And since Sinclair asked Parisi, and a reporter, about this anonymous source info, he wasn't necessarily wrecklessly reporting it. Sinclair's actions demonstrated interest in verifying the phone call information, despite it never actually being verified in the end. So this case has nothing to do with Obama allegedly paying off the most well-regarded polygraph administrator in the world. It has to do with whether Parisi could prove Sinclair was being malicious when making this claim in his book.

But wait, Sinclair asked that reporter, John Crewdson, to check out the anonymous tipper! Crewdson must've written a story about it, or at least something! *checks* Hmmm nope. Apparently the tipper told Crewdson the "same thing" as he told Sinclair. Which means the tipper gave Crewdson zero evidence and didn't reveal his identity, it was just another fun story time! How surprising that Crewdson, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, doesn't write salacious articles about polygraph bribery based upon a single anonymous tipper that could just as well be Sinclair using a voice masker on a cell phone.

Next let's address the Presidential approval ratings.

Rasmussen has a long history of strong right-leaning polls, just as other pollers like SurveyMonkey have a long history of strong left-leaning polls. You can read about it here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-rasmussen-reports-biased/ and here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ . To filter out polls that lean too hard left or right in their methods, there are poll aggregates like 538, who do a fantastic job in averaging out polls to give the most accurate number posssible. And if you start claiming 538 is biased, let me be clear, they were one of the only polling places to accurately give Trump a near 30% chance of winning. Even Rasmussen had it in the bag for Hillary like most other polling places (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...entary_by_larry_j_sabato/our_final_2016_picks). Trump's current aggregate rating is 42% approval while Obama's at this time was almost 48%. Nevermind that Trump wins the all-time record for worst approval rating for a President's first year. #Dealwithit "homie"

That you spent way too much time coming up with the biggest collection of cock and bull? Like I have stated more than a few times already in this very thread...once again.....the ‘scandals’ mean nothing to the average voter.

 

[Arkage]

That you spent way too much time coming up with the biggest collection of cock and bull? Like I have stated more than a few times already in this very thread...once again.....the ‘scandals’ mean nothing to the average voter.

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

Arkage:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fivethirtyeight/

Conclusion: Left Center bias

Let's look into the sites founder/previous owner Nate Silver who sold out to ABC earlier this year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/variet...ethirtyeight-espn-nate-silver-1202755646/amp/

ABC will serve as the latest perch for analysis from Silver and his team, which has caught national interest since the site’s 2008 genesis as a place for polling aggregation. Since that time, FiveThirtyEight has stretched to examine sports, economics and politics. In 2010, Silver moved the FiveThirtyEight blog to The New York Times, but ended up leaving for ESPN three years later, FiveThirtyEight gained national renown for its predictions of outcomes for primaries and elections, but ran into headwinds in 2016, when it gave overwhelming odds for victory to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times and ABC both are fake news organizations that have had Nate Silver on the payroll.

Again, big load of cock and bull.

 

[Harksteed]

Are we seriously entertaining Devil's moronic posts?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Arkage:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fivethirtyeight/

Conclusion: Left Center bias

Let's look into the sites founder/previous owner Nate Silver who sold out to ABC earlier this year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/variet...ethirtyeight-espn-nate-silver-1202755646/amp/

ABC will serve as the latest perch for analysis from Silver and his team, which has caught national interest since the site’s 2008 genesis as a place for polling aggregation. Since that time, FiveThirtyEight has stretched to examine sports, economics and politics. In 2010, Silver moved the FiveThirtyEight blog to The New York Times, but ended up leaving for ESPN three years later, FiveThirtyEight gained national renown for its predictions of outcomes for primaries and elections, but ran into headwinds in 2016, when it gave overwhelming odds for victory to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times and ABC both are fake news organizations that have had Nate Silver on the payroll.

Again, big load of cock and bull.

lulz, "Left Center", can't trust him!

Did you even ready your own website?

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: FiveThirtyEight, sometimes referred to as 538, is a website that focuses on opinion poll analysis, politics, economics, and sports blogging. The website, which takes its name from the number of electors in the United States electoral college, was founded on March 7, 2008, as a polling aggregation website with a blog created by analyst Nate Silver. FiveThirtyEight typically relies on its methodology and not opinion for its reports, however they do publish new stories that have a slight left-center bias in coverage. (5/16/2016)

^ Look at how biased he is along that chart!

Maybe you could point out what in his methodology is biased? He outlines his process in detail. How, in your opinion, could he change his methodology in order to reduce his bias? I'm sure many here would be interested in your ideas and suggestions.

Are we seriously entertaining Devil's moronic posts?

They're occasionally entertaining.

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

lulz, "Left Center", can't trust him!

Did you even ready your own website?

Did YOU read the website, home slice?

Factual Reporting: HIGH

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rasmussen-reports/

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

Are we seriously entertaining Devil's moronic posts?

I’m certainly entertained by PWNING scrubs.

Nate Silver can’t confirm the COMPETITION has better polling accuracy than he does after all....

 

[12Goblins]

I’m certainly entertained by PWNING scrubs.

Nate Silver can’t confirm the COMPETITION has better polling accuracy than he does after all....

Dev1lxyz I like you because you are very hurtful to your cause and you don't care about looking uneducated and uncredible

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Did YOU read the website, home slice?

Factual Reporting: HIGH

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rasmussen-reports/

I don't think you understand what polls are or how aggregation wo...

Nate Silver can’t confirm the COMPETITION has better polling accuracy than he does after all....

Oh, yeah you definitely don't.

Nate Silver doesn't have his own poll. He looks at a large dataset of reliable polls, including Rasmussen, and then weighs and aggregates the data based on the factors explained on the website I linked to several posts back.

Just like we don't favor individual scientific studies over a collection of them repeating the same experiment(s), it doesn't make sense at all to push a single poll as accurate when we can look at a much larger collection of them.

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

I don't think you understand what polls are or how aggregation wo...



Oh, yeah you definitely don't.

Nate Silver doesn't have his own poll. He looks at a large dataset of reliable polls, including Rasmussen, and then weighs and aggregates the data based on the factors explained on the website I linked to several posts back.

Just like we don't favor individual scientific studies over a collection of them repeating the same experiment(s), it doesn't make sense at all to push a single poll as accurate when we can look at a much larger collection of them.

Personal attacks...nice

 

[Tesseract]

president obama responded to donald trump's claims of a "rigged" election, saying trump should "stop whining."

he thought he'd win.

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

What laws? Trump is coming around to cycle down the war on drugs once he gets rid of Sessions, which by itself will do more good for minority populations in the US than has been done since the Civil Rights Act.

Where is the PRESIDENT getting rid of Sessions?
That’s hyperbole at best.....

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Personal attacks...nice

Pointing out that you don’t understand what Nate Silver does isn’t a personal attack.

If you think it is, go ahead and report that post and we’ll let the mods sort it out.

Still waiting on your suggestions for reducing 538’s polling bias, btw.

 

[Harksteed]

I’m certainly entertained by PWNING scrubs.

Nate Silver can’t confirm the COMPETITION has better polling accuracy than he does after all....

Oh I thought you had me on ignore

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

Pointing out that you don’t understand what Nate Silver does isn’t a personal attack.

If you think it is, go ahead and report that post and we’ll let the mods sort it out.

Still waiting on your suggestions for reducing 538’s polling bias, btw.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

Nate Silver analyzes baseball (see sabermetrics) and elections (see psephology). He is the founder and editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight and a Special Correspondent for ABC News. In April 2018, ABC News became FiveThirtyEight's new home, replacing ESPN.

Do you understand Nate Silver is Founder and Editor-In-Chief of the website, right?

Do you read the comments before spouting off lies?

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

Oh I thought you had me on ignore

You are like the guy who keeps walking into my fireballs and dragon punches! Comic Relief.

 

[TrainedRage]

Because Obama was an apologist. With no balls. That hated America.

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

president obama responded to donald trump's claims of a "rigged" election, saying trump should "stop whining."

he thought he'd win.

Obama thought that Hillary would win.

 

[Harksteed]

You are like the guy who keeps walking into my fireballs and dragon punches! Comic Relief.

!

 

[Harksteed]

Because Obama was an apologist. With no balls. That hated America.

*Looks at Trump practically salivating at the idea of licking the balls of Putin*

*Listens to Trump saying America also does a lot of bad things in response to a question about Russia meddling elections*

Oh, dear tough leader, so stronk

 

[TrainedRage]

*Looks at Trump practically salivating at the idea of licking the balls of Putin*

*Listens to Trump saying America also does a lot of bad things in response to a question about Russia meddling elections*

Oh, dear tough leader, so stronk

I never said a thing about Trump. You are so weird.

 

[12Goblins]

I never said a thing about Trump. You are so weird.

Lol youre so easy to read though

Do you know what projection is?

 

[Tesseract]

Obama thought that Hillary would win.

that's what i meant. he, they, her.

 

[AgentP]

It doesn’t make sense.

No one said they hacked the election. They were influencing the election through Facebook and social media along with hacking the DNC for dirt. These are not smoking guns, they are concerted efforts that time to uncover and understand Obama had info it was going on, but had to be careful about how public he made it due to looking like he was trying to put his hand on the scales.

 

[TrainedRage]

Lol youre so easy to read though

Do you know what projection is?

Is it you pretending to know my intent and inner thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Do you understand Nate Silver is Founder and Editor-In-Chief of the website, right?

You understand that he doesn't personally conduct a poll (nor does 538), right?

 

[TheShadowLord]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...annity-cites-misleading-obama-quote-coverage/

....What Hannity did not mention, however, was that Obama’s remarks actually came in response to a reporter’s question about voter fraud and Trump’s claims that the election could be rigged. Obama was not making reference to Russian interference. (For more on Russia’s election meddling, read our on-the-record timeline of events.) .....

....The Obama administration did receive some criticism for its quiet response to Russian interference, which the administration learned of in the months leading up to the election.

But as we have noted in previous fact-checks, it is an exaggeration to say Obama did nothing. By the Oct. 28, 2016, press conference, Obama had personally confronted Putin about it at the G20 Summit in China. Intelligence agencies under Obama’s administration had also accused Russia of being responsible for hacking and leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, issuing a joint statement from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence.

So Obama did show concern — and he was responding to Trump’s early claims of a rigged election based on voter fraud when he made the comment Hannity singled out.

From Hannity’s side, a Fox News spokesperson pointed to reports from the Washington Post and Reuters that former President Barack Obama was informed of Russian meddling as early as the summer of 2016, months before he stated that "there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.".....

 

[Deleted member 12837]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...annity-cites-misleading-obama-quote-coverage/

Stop that! People don't like it when you don't let them take quotes out of context to further their arguments.

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

It looks like those looking at the case lied to Congress.....