It is a statement coming from a poll, a statistical poll that is not based on fact. Therefore, there is no evidence to support or contradict, that is why it is wrong for you to spread it as fact. I am not saying that what I say is fact, either.
So polls are not factual? No they are not, they are stats from a sample size.... They are not like fact, like gravity is a fact.
It self defeated Clinton, it did not help her to call half the country deplorable, it made them dislike her even more. If people were on the fence, this probably put many in the Trump category. I don't know why I had to explain that.
You said "calling people deplorable" is self-defeating. This does not in anyway address that. You don't understand for something to be self-defeating it would mean the person saying something contradicts what they are saying or doesn't help them. You have not told me the intention behind Clinton saying deplorable instead accepted as something that did not help her win half the country. You didn't provide evidence to state the intent behind statement and evidence of what occurred later on that made it self defeating.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am comparing N8 calling half the country stupid to Clinton calling half the country deplorable. Are you saying that what she said wasn't self defeating? It is one thing that contributed to losing the race for Presidency. And she said it during her campaign, not before.
That was an assumption based on his uneducated base position.
A person can be uneducated without being an inbred who has no social skills. You basically made a remark that is not logical to what the person who made this topic brought up. Even this assumption is far-fetched.
Why would anyone choose to measure that statistic?
You can find reasons why the data is like that. That is why people try to find reasons in data. You make it seem as though every single data is not used to find out why this occurs.
The analytics crew, or polling crew made a hypothesis and distorted findings or picked and chose ways to make that hypothesis seem feasible.
How is the data distorted? Because that is what they do. They say things and report things that support their agenda. This applies to all MSM.
The left says they do not judge people by their beliefs, yet you are doing exactly that. Putting people in the dumb group. That is hypocritical.
This does not matter too much but evidence?
And what I am saying is your researchers are biased, and nothing they say should be taken seriously, including that "quote" above.
Biased doesn't mean wrong. The burden is on you to state that this bias is impacting their research so much that it is distorting data like you said earlier on.
This was just a side note, not proof of anything.
1 out 4 paragraphs were dedicated to a "side note". You could have easily removed that if you are incapable of defending your stance but you didn't. Do you want to change what your anecdote represents?
I agree, they will not stop, but sooner or later, people will catch on, and they will be, and have been losing a lot of viewership due to that fact. They will soon go the way of the National Enquirer, reading things they want to believe to keep themselves entertained.
You need data to say how Fox and CNN will lose revenue eventually due to the spreading of false information. No I don't. I am saying I hope they do.
CNN and MSNBC have been focused on Barr and Mueller non stop for 24 hours, and not reporting on anything else that is happening in or outside of the country.... unless it has to do with "Trump is bad"
What has this got to do with anything? They are the news and they are reporting on what is relevant. What have you got against that?
It is not news, it is more speculation, some "news" outlets do it more than others.
I'm sure there are dumb (gullible and inability to critically think) people on both sides of the isle.
If you agree with that why are you against the creator of this topic using data to find Trump supporters did poorly in an intellectual ability test compared to Hillary supporters?
He is talking about a hardly comprehensive test that concluded "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability," the researchers note.
This is not fact, yet he is taking it as fact, and spreading it around. I don't need research and people to tell me what to believe, backing it up by crap research projects, and statistics that have been skewed so people like N8 can spread this around and try to make people feel like they are in the dumb category. This is the same thing that Russia did, only the other way around. Might as well include him in the Russian interference.