Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Trump Presidency...

He said nothing of the sort. You can dislike him for his politics, but his actual quote was:

“Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives.”

Which part of that do you disagree with?

you are nitpicking, I almost had it in quotes.
Too bad he forgot those words during the BLM riots eh.




"Voter mobilization"

1603326936828.png

No, it isn't Satanism is it.

Promoted as such though by media outlets. And funny AF to watch them back peddle it is too.

Thankfully there is a widespread lack of sense of humour on the part of credulous Conservatives and censorious left.

But wonderfully it is always someone else's fault.

Probably started in that Sharia controlled no-go zone that is London.

What media outlets?

Are you making shit up again?
 
So, FBI and DNI now confirm that Iran have been interfering in the Election

"We have already seen Iran sending spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest and damage President Trump,"

Yes, that’s an actual quote:



Of course, the usual suspects will be telling us that proof of Iranian disinformation is actually Russian disinformation
 
That’s entirely possible of course, as (has been discussed in this thread before) the rioting and the BLM fuckwittery is not something that’s actually on the left-right axis, but has ‘cunningly’ been placed there by Trump and his team. When called on claims that Karmala Harris, for example, supported the rioting, no evidence for same has been provided.

And that leads me to the obvious question, where’s your evidence that the Black Trump vote will double? Because obviously you won’t have just made that up.

“BLM fuckwittery was placed by On the left wing axis by Trump and his team? “

That’s comedic gold!
 
No gentleman has worn a Windsor knot since Edward VIII abdicated for that, er, American* woman.
* Good job none of our royals have been stupid enough to make that mistake since.





Er...
Are Hitler Symps ''Gentlemen" now?
 
That’s entirely possible of course, as (has been discussed in this thread before) the rioting and the BLM fuckwittery is not something that’s actually on the left-right axis, but has ‘cunningly’ been placed there by Trump and his team. When called on claims that Karmala Harris, for example, supported the rioting, no evidence for same has been provided.

And that leads me to the obvious question, where’s your evidence that the Black Trump vote will double? Because obviously you won’t have just made that up.
50 cent has 26 million followers give or take. If five percent change their vote based on him, that is huge. But turn a few high profile people to the cause and you can get some of their followers.

Double is a bit of a stretch, but if he could get ten percent that is a victory.
 
It's not the only ludicrous idea the alt right and Qtards have got from films.

The whole Hollywood/elites cannibal paedophiles torturing children to extract adrenochrome to use as a recreational drug came from Hunter S Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and the Johnny Depp film of the same name.

Thompson just used the name as a cool sounding name for an imaginary but powerful psychedelic drug

In reality it is just a cheap, easy to produce pharmaceutical with limited medicinal use. It has no value as a recreational drug whatsoever.

I think some kid invented the myth on 4chan and the easily deluded and hard of thinking took it up with gusto.

Still, why waste a good story or bother it with facts.
With respect to a supposed drug extracted from the bodies of tortured children, there was a science fiction short story from the 1960s or some time around then that had a plot element somewhat similar to this.

The plot element was that an agent sent to overthrow the government of a planet that was ruled by a sadistic cult had brought a large quantity of recreational drugs with him and used it to befriend the ruling oligarchy, who rapidly became addicted. The agent then told them that they were using exceptionally large amounts of the drug and were going through his stash much faster than he had thought possible and he was afraid of running out.

He then told them that the drug could only be made by extracting it from the brains of men who had been tortured to death. As this concept fit right in with the oligarchical cult's philosophy (they felt that one can only feel pleasure if someone else feels pain) they were willing to believe him. They therefore set about torturing large numbers of men in a very public manner in order to supply the agent with corpses from which to extract the drug from their brains.

However, there was no drug to be extracted from the brains of tortured men, that was a complete fiction. The agent's intent was to make the population so desperate that they would rise up and overthrow their government. As the story ends the populace rose up as expected, and the agent's goal was fulfilled.

This was in a short story written by someone like Poul Anderson, or Harry Harrison, or one of the other well known science fiction authors of that generation, if I recall correctly. I've probably still got the book somewhere, the story was either part of an anthology or an author's collection of short stories.

The "sadistic government cabal extracting recreational drugs from the brains of people who were tortured to death" is not exactly a common theme in fiction, so I wouldn't be surprised if the persons peddling this latest version got their idea from that science fiction story.


The overall theme of the story is by the way rather interesting to contemplate in the current context. The basic premise of the story was that people living under an oppressive government system often would put up with a great deal, and would only rise up against their oppressors if made truly desperate. The way to make the people truly desperate was to "help" the oppressors and work with them in a way which would encourage them to become even more oppressive, and so to provoke the violent uprising which would completely overturn the existing basis of society and replace it all with something else.

I don't know what motivates the people at the centre of all this, but it's interesting to think about ultimate motives.
 
The following would probably not interest anyone other than @Boumer , but I suspect that it is right up his alley in terms of the sorts of things that seem to interest him.

The short version is that is it a presentation given at the Royal Canadian Military Institute about the security implications for Canada of things going badly wrong in the US after the election in terms of civil unrest. They cover the possibilities of unrest, the limits on it, who might do what, what might inspire them, who the various loopy groups are and what motivates them, etc.

If you're easily bored, this isn't for you. It's probably a niche interest subject.

 
50 cent has 26 million followers give or take. If five percent change their vote based on him, that is huge. But turn a few high profile people to the cause and you can get some of their followers.

Double is a bit of a stretch, but if he could get ten percent that is a victory.
The original quote stated that the Black demographic of 18-44 was set to double and the Hispanic vote was also up for Trump, sourced from 538 polling (why Bob can't dismiss/reject it). The point wasn't so much the obsession with the word 'double' and proving it right or wrong, but just another tiny piece of evidence, that the polling is missing a significant block of voters which in isolation isn't enough, but from many little acorns do great oaks grow.

The pollsters are fixed on their own failures in 2016 and are effectively refighting that battle again and all came up with a consistent average and Bob is perfectly correct in the middle of the year. Those pollsters who broke ranks Rasmusson/IBDTIPP/Zogby/Trafalgar have started to factor in new and significant blocks of voters and a lot of suspicion, has fallen on the 15% of republicans from 2016 who claim they're will vote Biden and most seemed to have simply split them 50/50.

My essential argument is Trump will do better and based on 2016, he will finish on somewhere around 45% and lose the election + The unknown new blocks of voters which could be anywhere from 1-4% and the closer it is, the odds of Trump winning the electoral college rise to 100%.
 
Are Hitler Symps ''Gentlemen" now?

Exactly the opposite.

When Edward VIII abdicated, there was a moment where British society found its loyalties divided.

Old king (Edward) or new king (George 6).

One way that supporters of Edward identified themselves was to adopt the tie knot that was sported by Edward. Think of it as the red baseball hat of the 1930s.

In the forces it was absolutely critical that loyalty was to the crown. Hence all officers in the Royal Navy or the Army were expected to use a standard tie knot to show loyalty to George and his successors. This remained the case for decades.

The RAF were exempted as they tend to use made up ties on elastic or clips.
 
50 cent has 26 million followers give or take. If five percent change their vote based on him, that is huge. But turn a few high profile people to the cause and you can get some of their followers.

Double is a bit of a stretch, but if he could get ten percent that is a victory.

The power of statistical analysis is very useful. If I could be bothered to work out the mean and standard deviations of black voting demographics since 1964 it would be a powerful predictive tool. But just looking at the data shows that in statistical terms it’s 2008 (the first Obama vote) that is the outlier. Statisticians will expect regression to the mean regardless of Trump. Anything around 10-15% is entirely within parameters. Trump scoring 20% of the Black vote would be a victory for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The original quote stated that the Black demographic of 18-44 was set to double and the Hispanic vote was also up for Trump, sourced from 538 polling (why Bob can't dismiss/reject it). The point wasn't so much the obsession with the word 'double' and proving it right or wrong, but just another tiny piece of evidence, that the polling is missing a significant block of voters which in isolation isn't enough, but from many little acorns do great oaks grow.

The pollsters are fixed on their own failures in 2016 and are effectively refighting that battle again and all came up with a consistent average and Bob is perfectly correct in the middle of the year. Those pollsters who broke ranks Rasmusson/IBDTIPP/Zogby/Trafalgar have started to factor in new and significant blocks of voters and a lot of suspicion, has fallen on the 15% of republicans from 2016 who claim they're will vote Biden and most seemed to have simply split them 50/50.

My essential argument is Trump will do better and based on 2016, he will finish on somewhere around 45% and lose the election + The unknown new blocks of voters which could be anywhere from 1-4% and the closer it is, the odds of Trump winning the electoral college rise to 100%.

The problem is your entire analysis is unscientific.

To conduct a poll you need three things.

1. A very clear question. In this case, who will you vote for if the election was held today?

2. A large enough sample size. Under most statistical tests it’s about 300 to have a 95% confidence level. If your population is truly randomly selected.

3. Removal of bias. Steps 1 and 2 only work if you can remove bias from the sample selection. See previous post about the Literary Digest poll in 1936. One way of helping to do this is a larger sample size. But that’s expensive.

This is why the ‘poll of poll’ technique is important. In effect it gets you a larger sample size and helps control for the foibles of individual polls.

What you CAN’T do (and what you keep doing) is then selecting out those individual polls which seem to give you the message you want.

You have to look at all the polls.

Nobody is ‘splitting blocks of votes 50/50’. You’re making that up. It’s not how polls work
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Trump won in 2016 thanks to his opponent really looking like a female equivelent of Dr Strangelove.
Trump will probably win in 2020, thanks to his opponents inability to actually have any fresh ideas and suspicions of those around him are enough to inject some fear.

Astonishing really, as Tulsi Gabbard for instance would have blown Trump out of the water.
TBF, she could just blow me!
1603350847616.png
 
“BLM fuckwittery was placed by On the left wing axis by Trump and his team? “

That’s comedic gold!

Not really.

What we’ve got here is a confounding variable. It’s the difference between correlation and causation.

What Trumps team did very cleverly was associate blacks with democrats. The Democrats were slow to respond and I’m sure it’s cost them. Not with you, obviously, as there’s clearly no way you’d vote Democrat, but with ‘swing’ voters.

The equation that the Trump team are proposing is

Democrat = propensity to violence

They are hypothesising that if you polled those involved in the violence, most of them would vote Democrat. Therefore the Democratic Party supports violence.

But a better explanation might be


Black anger = perception of police brutality.

This is much more nuanced. It’s also perception which is harder to break into sound bites.

If there is a racially motivated element to police brutality, anger is justified. If there isn’t, it isn’t.

But Trump was cunning in how he framed this. Black anger is the ‘confounding variable’ in the original Trump narrative. But by making it about Democrats he has polarised it in a way that suits him.

Blacks do tend to vote Democrat
Blacks are angry about perceived prejudice
Some blacks have rioted
Therefore this is Democrat violence

At this point Trump has committed a logical fallacy- but a very powerful one. Because it was essentially a ‘black’ protest and because blacks tend to vote Democrat, Trump talks about it as a ‘Democrat’ problem.

Because the black vote is important, the Democrats found themselves facing, in essence, the ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ question. They were in trouble however they answered it.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
In the forces it was absolutely critical that loyalty was to the crown. Hence all officers in the Royal Navy or the Army were expected to use a standard tie knot to show loyalty to George and his successors. This remained the case for decades.

The RAF were exempted as they tend to use made up ties on elastic or clips.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
Not just the FBI it would seem.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons;

Hunter Biden's ex-business associate now in fear for his life

Hunter Biden's ex-business associate, after talking and releasing e-mails to the press, transferred from white collar minimum security work camp to a high security facility and placed in solitary confinement (for his own protection).

His family are concerned for his safety.

I think I would be too.
 

offog

LE
So, FBI and DNI now confirm that Iran have been interfering in the Election

"We have already seen Iran sending spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest and damage President Trump,"

Yes, that’s an actual quote:



Of course, the usual suspects will be telling us that proof of Iranian disinformation is actually Russian disinformation
You really should read your links to the end.
 
Exactly the opposite.

When Edward VIII abdicated, there was a moment where British society found its loyalties divided.

Old king (Edward) or new king (George 6).

One way that supporters of Edward identified themselves was to adopt the tie knot that was sported by Edward. Think of it as the red baseball hat of the 1930s.

In the forces it was absolutely critical that loyalty was to the crown. Hence all officers in the Royal Navy or the Army were expected to use a standard tie knot to show loyalty to George and his successors. This remained the case for decades.

The RAF were exempted as they tend to use made up ties on elastic or clips.

that double knot is only for cads ands and bounders!
 

Latest Threads

Top