The Demolition of Russia's Economy

[gwb-trading]

Lies. Your liberal tabloid paper even contradicts you

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2020-election-polls-were-most-least-accurate/

View attachment 307544

They were the "least accurate" because many were biased for a higher percentage Biden win.

Are you claiming that Rasmussen which predicted in 2020 that Trump would win by +4 points "correctly predicted the 2020 election"? Your assertion is laughable. In fact Rasmussen ranked number one for the least accurate in 2020.

 

[easymon1]

 

[M.W.]

I never cheered Russia. How old are you that you cant argue fair and square and instead resort to constant lies.

Translation: I have no clue what push polling means so let me play the victim like a typical right winger.



And here it is, first the victimhood and then the whataboutism. Who mentioned Black lives matter here?



If it walks like a duck....



Ya, your bias is pretty obvious. Also it makes perfect sense that you support Russia given their narrative about being 'pro white, christian, anti-woke' country. No wonder you are cheering them in every post.

 

[M.W.]

Inquire with the Washington Post, they published it.

They were the "least accurate" because many were biased for a higher percentage Biden win.

Are you claiming that Rasmussen which predicted in 2020 that Trump would win by +4 points "correctly predicted the 2020 election"? Your assertion is laughable. In fact Rasmussen ranked number one for the least accurate in 2020.

 

[gwb-trading]

Inquire with the Washington Post, they published it.

View attachment 307552

Rasmussen could not even show the correct candidate winning. I guess this is your version of accurate.

 

[M.W.]

Then your favorite tabloid must have gotten it all wrong lol. You should immediately go ahead and cancel Bezos.

Rasmussen could not even show the correct candidate winning. I guess this is your version of accurate.

 

[Cuddles]

Translation: Pollsters are forbidden to ask questions that reveal the truth of hatred towards people of white color. Got it, understood.

So, polling organizations are delegitimized the moment they include in any of their polls "black lives matter" as well? Nobody has been harmed after the term "its ok to be white" was uttered, name us one example that contradicts my statement. "Black lives matter" is pretty much synonymous with black flash mobs robbing department stores, computer stores, and destroying anything that gets in their way. Screaming and blocking debaters from entering universities. Hitting and punching hundreds, violence against police, hatred against the police...in summary: UTTER VIOLENCE.

By the way you should get your facts straight: The term "it's ok to be white" was created as an alt-right trolling campaign and has later been supported by white supremacists and neo-nazis. That does not make the creators nor users of the term white supremacists or neo-nazis.

Edit: I agree, though, that the statistical significance can be greatly improved. I doubt it would skew the results by much on this particular question.

so you recognize the inception of "it's ok to be white", realize the reactionary nature and adoption by racists of it, then get triggered when blacks knowing what it means react negatively to it? Then you have the gall to use Rasmussen as "serious" when they don't disclose the negative connotation of the "it's ok to be white" campaign to those unfamiliar with it knowing full well there's a bias to that line of questioning?

Hey guise, why would anyone have a negative opinion of "porch monkey"? It's just monkeys on a porch.

 

[M.W.]

It does not change the meaning just because certain people use it. The original intent is all that matters. And blacks did not react to the history of the term they shared their personal conviction when being confronted with a question. When someone asks me "Do you believe that 'black lives matter'?" You can wake me any time of night and I will always enthusiastically say YES!!! If one can't keep those two intents apart then perhaps such individual is truly not quite qualified in terms of IQ to address such questions.

so you recognize the inception of "it's ok to be white", realize the reactionary nature and adoption by racists of it, then get triggered when blacks knowing what it means react negatively to it? Then you have the gall to use Rasmussen as "serious" when they don't disclose the negative connotation of the "it's ok to be white" campaign to those unfamiliar with it knowing full well there's a bias to that line of questioning?

 

[gwb-trading]

France says sanctions against Russia are ‘very efficient’ as more are being considered
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/27/france-says-sanctions-against-russia-are-very-efficient-.html

 

[Cuddles]

It does not change the meaning just because certain people use it. The original intent is all that matters.

"hey guise, you should not have a problem with "porch monkey". It literally means something other than what it's used for.

And blacks did not react to the history of the term they shared their personal conviction when being confronted with a question.

you have a source for that, and no, your ass doesn't count.

If one can't keep those two intents apart then perhaps such individual is truly not quite qualified in terms of IQ to address such questions.

If one can't tie the politics behind a slogan and how that would color and bias a poll, then perhaps such individual is truly not quite qualified in terms of IQ to ask such questions.