What a god damn fucking pussy

What a god damn fucking pussy.

Other urls found in this thread:

cbsnews.com/news/markets-predict-hillary-clinton-will-beat-donald-trump/
economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/10/daily-chart-14
thewrap.com/every-poll-that-got-election-wrong-donald-trump/
news.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
stattrek.com/survey-research/survey-bias.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)
rollingstone.com/music/news/taylor-swift-talks-feminism-misogyny-in-maxim-20150519
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/939189419386470401
twitter.com/AnonBabble

jews gonna jew

I love this new form of leftist activism.
>RESIST DRUMPF BY DOING LITERALLY NOTHING

neo nazi white separatists shouldn't have radio shows they should be murdered

oh no, not the interviews! I demand siriusxm take a hard stance against free speech right now!!!

didn't you guys already cry your faggot eyes about this already in the other thread?

Seems to me both Bannon and Rogen are exercising their right to free speech. Whats the issue?

And so are we....

Lmao lol weed. All people are basically refugees maaaaan. Don't thrust the government dude.

>cry

>So we're going to criticise a person exercising their freedom of speech by exercising our freedom of speech, while shouting down anyone who disagrees (while exercising their freedom of speech)?

I didn't start the thread

The only one attempting to shout anyone down is you...

Call him a crybaby, if you must, but how is going back on a commitment because of moral conflict a "pussy" thing to do. A pussy would just ignore their conscience in order to not make waves.

I mean, it's ok to disagree, but put a little more thought into it.

I asked 2 questions, whats the issue, and are we going to criticise people hypocritically?

as opposed to rightwing activism
>keurig pulled ads from my propaganda show
>i will destroy my $200 coffee maker to make a point

The difference is it actually worked

That $200 coffee maker needs cups to use so you hurt the market when you sop buying those.

lmao you mad pussy?

based Rogen

in america there is free speech, so don't discuss things

SEETHING.

miller looks like putin

Close...

it got them to apologize, but they didn't undo their decision to pull ads. several grand in coffee makers for an apology, good work cucks

The point wasn't so much to get Keurig to buy back the ads, that was always unlikely.

The point was to paint them as a partisan advocates instead of a politically neutral company, and to basically send a message to other companies that the same thing will happen to them if they pull ads from right-wing shows.

>that the same thing will happen to them
yeah not entirely sure companies that pull ads from controversial shows are afraid of Angry Conservative Twitter™

the only thing this debacle proved was that announcing corporate decisions like this over social media is unprofessional, and that people are stupid enough to destroy expensive electronics to defend their favorite propagandists

Anyone who owns one of those machines is a stooge anyway.

>propagandists
i don't think you know what this means. telling the truth isn't propaganda

>remember kids, it's not propaganda if i agree with it

Most companies are risk-averse and are terrified of becoming political footballs. And the relatively few companies that don't mind advocating left-wing values aren't buying commercials on Hannity's show anyway.

I'm not saying that destroying coffee machines is anything other than a silly stunt. I'm just saying that silly stunts can be effective, especially nowadays.

Did he ever pay those animators for that hotdog movie?

A SJW wearing a different hat.

Being risk-adverse is the reason why they pulled the ads in the first place. Keurig understandably wouldn't want to be associated with a show that airs a segment defending someone accused of sexual assault, especially when minors are involved. I assume a part of that risk calculation was that Roy Moore's campaign would come to an end; of course, that wasn't what happened. The controversy arose from Keurig's social media director announcing it on Twitter. If they just quietly pulled the ads no one would've cared or noticed.

>The controversy arose from Keurig's social media director announcing it on Twitter. If they just quietly pulled the ads no one would've cared or noticed.

Fair enough.

>"Everyone I don't like belongs to a short-lived foreign political party."

>Hitler had a lot of good ideas
>"shut up nazi"
>Wow you're just gonna throw that outdated meaningless insult around just because you don't like what I say?"

I see your point but going by Hollywood's political climate it's quite definitely not courageous or "taking a stand" or something to boycott a gig because of someone like Bannon. It's actually sort of expected in a way. Taylor Swift gets criticized for not openly denouncing Trump and being too apolitical ffs.

>Taylor Swift gets criticized for not openly denouncing Trump and being too apolitical ffs.
Which is mildly justified when she claims to be a feminist and an advocate for women and whatever else. She only gets political when its advantageous for her career or makes her look generically "good." That's where the criticism comes from.

>sticking by your morals means being a pussy
you'd think that in the insanely polarized political environment we live in that standing strong with your morality is something everyone can admire. but no, anything someone on the evil other side does is stupid.

fuck this gay earth

You're against environmental and animal protection?

I never said it was "courageous" or "taking a stand", but I think you underestimate how little he had to give a fuck to do this. All he has to do is call his agent and say "ah, fuck this. Cancel it."
It's not even that he is trying to be trendy or fit in, you overestimate him. He doesn't give a shit. He thinks ban on is a piece of shit, so fuck it. He did a wake and bake, and decided fuck it.

You don't have to admire him, or hate him. It's not a power play, or a draw for attention, or a grand gesture. He is just throwing what little weight he has in the industry in the direction, in the direction he chooses.

his face actually looks pretty creepy in that pic, especially with those dead eyes, it kind of makes him look like he could be a cunt

those vids comparing his speeches during the campaign and goebbels were pretty funny and ironic though, especially since he's a jew

He's a Canadian who isn't a hockey player. Cuckoldry is in his soy-infused blood.

wasn´t he also accused of harassing some women by that that hashtag campaign.
also could he be anymore of an steriotyp of a lefty?
"muuh somebody I don´t like get´s to express his opinions so I´m just not gonna talk to people that support his right to freedom of speech."
now liberals attitude to free speech is real creeping fascism in america

it's seriously like $40 of electronics and $10 of plastic

>as opposed to rightwing activism

*wins election. winning the culture wars*

That was many dude, weeds ago, user. He doesn't even remember that scam anymore.

right wing activism
>democratically elect a leader that BTFOs left wing activism on a daily basis

>I won't hawk my shit on your stations

Oh, geez, no, please, come back

Doesn't this make him unprofessional, plus it makes him look weak since he can't defend whatever ideals he has against adversity.

i think the user earlier almost crystallized it, protest nothing by doing nothing.

the best part is a guy famous for dude weed lmao movies thinks anybody would give a shit about his political posturing

>winning the culture wars
>60% of the country still doesn't support trump
winning so much you'll get tired of it

>32% approval
>winning anything

>0.1% chance to win the election

please post a poll average within the last seven (7) days of the election indicating this to be the case

i'll help you get started, here's a poll average from today indicating that the almost two thirds of the country dislike our president

oh wow are those the exact same polls that gave him a 0% chance of winning the election too? it's almost as if there's an agenda here..?
by the way, you should look into what sampling methods these polls use and their confidence intervals :)

>the exact same polls that gave him a 0%
you haven't produced these polls friend

you certainly can't be referring to this poll average from the week of election day indicating that HRC would win by 2.1% because she actually did win by exactly 2.1% so honestly this is a pretty trustworthy set of polls

cbsnews.com/news/markets-predict-hillary-clinton-will-beat-donald-trump/
Here's CBS

Here's the economist
economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/10/daily-chart-14
"pplying a quick, back-of-the-envelope method (see below) based on polls’ historical performance yields a 96% chance of a win for Mrs Clinton. That figure is in the same ballpark as more sophisticated projections, but slightly higher: the New York Times gives her 92%, FiveThirtyEight 87% and PredictWise 90%,"

should I keep going?

the CBS article
>Certainly, a Clinton win is hardly a forgone conclusion. Many polls put her in the lead, but not by wide margins. The latest CBS News poll shows Clinton at 45 percent and Trump at 41 percent. In the 1980 match-up between incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter and GOP challenger Ronald Reagan, the polls were tight throughout the fall, with the final Gallup survey showing 47 percent for Reagan and 44 percent for Carter. On Election Day, though, Reagan won handily, 51 to 41 percent.

the economist article was two and a half weeks out from election day so it's not particularly useful but even then it says
>Even a seemingly commanding lead of eight percentage points 200 days ahead of the election, when polls historically miss the mark by four points, could conceivably evaporate. As a result, the confidence intervals (a range of likeliest outcomes) surrounding polling averages are wide early in the campaign, when there is more uncertainty, and narrow steadily as it nears its end.

so it's pretty obvious the point you're trying to make and the points conveyed by the articles you shared are completely different

Seth Rogan looks like someone who fucks kids and laughs when they die during it

>Understanding numbers
>Reading details (aka fine print)
Jew detected

>completely missing the point
Did you not see where the economist gave her a 96% chance to win the election? It was stated after the fact; even taking into account the lead of "eight percentage points," the poll would only be wrong by four, and this could be in either direction, which would STILL give her the win.
thewrap.com/every-poll-that-got-election-wrong-donald-trump/
Trusting polls that have been wrong every single time? Yea no thanks,.

What a great ice breaker. Gonna use this at work tomorrow.

>Die during it
Why, can't they take a joke?

you seem focused on the chance to win statistics, which makes me curious - what percentage would you have been comfortable with? 50-50? and 80-20, fuck even a 96-4, still grants that trump could win, right?

if you look at the polling averages for the popular vote you will see that each poll conducted was accurate. she ended up winning the pop vote by about two percentage points, a fact reflected pretty well in the polls leading up to election day if the polls can accurately predict the pop vote it's pretty reasonable that they can assess the president's approval rating - a fact not lost on the president himself who often shares whatever poll is showing his approval rating to be the highest.

95-5. Trump was going to win and I never doubted his chance. Did you not see the size of Hillary's rallies compare to his? Did she even bother to visit the swing states? That dumb witch didn't give a flying
Who the fuck are about the popular vote when it's the electoral vote that matters most? It's no shit a democrat will almost always win the popular vote post reagan era when he gave amnesty to all the illegals in california making it a permanent blue state.
If you remove California, trump won the popular vote in a landslide as well. There is no point in voting republican in California, none.
I couldn't care less about your popular vote statistics because anyone with a brain will realize a democrat will win it within 5 percent.
On the topic of approval rating, you didn't even bother to look at the sampling methods of those polls. If you take these polls in california, no shit they're gonna disapprove.

If you defend Bannon's right to speech, you should defend someone else's right to no speak

you continue to miss the point

polls successfully predicted the popular vote outcome, indicating that yes they are indeed reliable. i'm sorry that the average of 10 different polls about the president's approval indicates that he is indeed still extremely unpopular, i know it upsets you to see numbers you don't like. i get it.

also
>trump won the popular vote in a landslide as well.
>as well
ignoring the rest of that general nonsense i find it really interesting that you're implying his electoral college victory is a "landslide". if 77 votes is a landslide, i'm curious what word you'd use to refer to obama's 126 and 192 margin victories, or even reagan's 512 margin.

fuck that
i'm working on a class action lawsuit right now and scheduling a meeting with congress to demand seth do the show

Jewish fragility

Those same polls that predicted her POPULAR VOTE WIN also said she would get the ELECTION WIN. POPULAR VOTE does not matter in an election, ELECTORAL VOTE DOES. If you imply someone WINS AN ELECTION, that means THEY WIN THE ELECTORAL VOTE, the POPULAR VOTE doesn't mean anything. Do you understand thus far?
You seem to completely disregard the entirety of that post to cherrypick things to argue against without even understanding the premises.
>i'm curious to blah blah
Has nothing to do with this conversation.

the issue is he's being a petty faggot. that's all. this isn't a free speech issue

>Has nothing to do with this conversation.
sure, but in no universe could anyone accurately refer to the donald's win as a landslide, just so we're all clear

so obviously the popular vote doesn't matter, we all know that. that's not up for discussion here. what's up for discussion is the reliability of polls.

IF the polls reliably predicted [x], THEN would be reasonable to assume they could also predict [y].

x=popular vote margin
y=presidential approval ratings

plus the donald himself seems to trust approval rating polls when they are somewhat favorable to him exclusively so why shouldn't i, also?

>She only gets political when
never. she never gets political. unless you think publicly calling someone out for groping you is somehow getting political

calling yourself a feminist that stands up for women's rights is political.

When has she done this

>Blumpf does the best he can for Jews with Jerusalem issue
>Kikes still ungrateful

I would rather break a coffee maker than humiliate myself in public by wearing a pussy on my head.

Or go to a university in a diaper and pacifier to protest safe spaces.

>plus the donald himself seems to trust approval rating polls when they are somewhat favorable to him exclusively so why shouldn't i, also?
Because you have never taken a statistics class nor understand what the fuck sampling is? I've literally repeated to you multiple times to look at the sampling methods these polls use.
What the fuck does you if X then Y analogy even mean? You're arguing fallacies here moron.

Here, I'll even do the retarded work for you:
Here's your coveted gallup poll
news.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
"Daily results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 national adults"
Here's a little stat 101 for you on bias, perhaps you should learn what that is before arguing about shit you know nothing about
stattrek.com/survey-research/survey-bias.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)

A sample size of 1,500 to reflect a country of over 300 million is not very accurate (more stats 101 for you).
Why the gallup poll is biased: don't say which states they choose to call, democrats may be more likely to answer the phone and respond to surveys than republicans, they call at times where trump supporters are more likely to be out of the house.
The list goes on and on; a telephone survey is the least accurate convenience sampling you can choose.
I'm done replying to your retardation.

rollingstone.com/music/news/taylor-swift-talks-feminism-misogyny-in-maxim-20150519

that still leaves nine (9) other polls reflecting basically the same idea: about 60% of the country doesn't like trump.

or are those also all unreliable? is that why the donald shares them and brags about them? does he also think they're unreliable?

just trying to sort out all this cognitive dissonance

What the fuck is SiriusXM? How the fuck are they building what essentially is a radio station in current year?

>wahh spoonfeed me and go through every poll and explain why it's bad for me
ya naw fuck yourself cunt, stay an uneducated bogan like the rest of you amerisharts

Ok, granted, but that was literally only that one time

just a wee bit convenient innit that that metric by which we assess the president's popularity happens to be immeasurable just because the current president is donald trump

except for donald trump himself of course who does trust these things when they make him look good hilarious that 45% approval is considered "good" by this president

just a wee bit convenient innit that the media runs the biggest smear campaign against any president alive or dead, gives him 0% chance to win the election, portrays him as hitler every other day, and expects his approval to be anything like obongo's

you're so pathetic it's sad

>that one time
I think that's the point m8. She tagged herself in the movement when it was safe and not divisive to call yourself a feminist. Two years and one Donald Trump later she hasn't said a word about feminism.

Oh my God.

The trick is to get your *opponent* to embarrass themselves.

the fact that we shifted from "these polls are not accurate" to "these polls are accurate B-B-BUT of COURSE the majority of americans hate trump because THE MEDIA makes him the bad guy :^(" proves my point

thanks kid

The fact that you implied x from y again proves that you are retarded.
I literally proved to you how gallup and all those other polls are shite tier with their sampling methods, bias, sample size, and you still think you're proving a point.
Never have I said these polls are accurate, the average reading comprehension of the typical american must be at an 8th grade level, you people are all retarded.

i don't know if you are also but that poster basically conceded the argument by implying that
>yeah the president's approval rating is low
>but it's not HIS fault
not gonna debate the merits of this particular argument but its premise is a concession to my original argument that a majority of the country doesn't like this president and therefore any implication of "winning" is pretty dicey to say the least.

People STILL trusting polls after the election? Forget them they're a lost cause

Only an absolute fucking moron would trust the p-

Never trusting the news or polls after the bullshit i saw during the election fuck that you might as well BEG to be brainwashed

thats exactly what the indians did against the brits
as much as i hate leftists, i still gotta give em that one

I also noticed how quick you had the neatly made picture, hows brock doing havnt heard about him after that heart attack

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/939189419386470401

God I hate kikes so fucking much