Yeah, even if Trump was on something it wouldn’t surprise me. But Biden REALLY looks medicated.
1 Like
Same. I haven’t messed much with nootropics but if you had experience and access who wouldn’t want to use them before a test in front of the nation?
I find the whole thing a bit funny. “Joe sounds way too smart…he must be on drugs!” Perhaps but if so I wish he would share with the President. He could use a big pack of brain candy I think.
2 Likes
It’s not that he sounds too smart. It’s his delivery of his lines that come off as not normal. You can’t make Trump smarter with drugs lol. Joe’s already a smart guy to begin with.
But does something exist to where he could get through a interview with an old woman? Even if she did something as awful as quote him and ask him about it.
Maybe that’s a question for the pharma section!
1 Like
I think most roids have a direct effect on dopamine. Maybe give him a big dose of tren ace before long interviews lol.
I’ve “learned” a lot about those scanning the TRT forums…
1 Like
It’s the people pointing out how “with it” Joe is in these things as some sort of “proof” of his “acceptable” cognitive decline that have me shaking my head.
I’d be worried if he has to do large amounts of stuff daily just to function normally. Think he can keep this up for 4 years?
I think it would be a lot of fun if we could have a good-natured jeopardy competition between the candidates. To keep things honest, Johnny Sins will be the third competitor. We could put a Libertarian in there too, but can any of them match a career like Johnny?
Who else has walked in so many shoes? Plumber, Doctor, Carpenter, Naive Christian, Scientist and Superhero. He’s done it all.
I think Johnny Sins wins handily in any fair Jeopardy episode against Biden and Trump. That’s why I’m voting for #Trump in 2020.
Hey, he’s always the smartest guy in the room!
Definitely smart enough to know to plagiarize…errr, I mean take the advice of, those people smarter than he is.
There’s still YT videos of Biden plagiarizing like it’s 1999 during his 1988(?) abortive run for president. Man, the good old days when comedians could make fun of everyone and everything.
1 Like
All kidding aside, I honestly do not. I think Biden is starting out where Reagan ended up.
2 Likes
Was he the one giving that speech during the big steroid thing in baseball or something saying something about, “Winning with my own God given talent.”? I can’t remember. It was in that steroid documentary a couple of years back. If so, oh the fucking irony lol.
I had to google him. Now I’m proud to say I had no idea who he is lol.
1 Like
Didn’t watch any of the politicians. A bunch of geezers passing judgment on racehorses who were encouraged to do whatever it took to make baseball popular again. Oh, the hypocrisy.
1 Like
When journalism and actual reporting was still a thing:
Lots of people of have said that. Many, many smart people, in fact, have told him that themselves. Great guys. Very smart, honest guys. In fact, just the other day a rocket scientist told him he was a genius.
Ok seriously, here’s a daily dose of China Trump dissing:
According to my wife, the media reported that his mother prophesized when he was a child that he must never enter politics or he would bring about the end of civilization.
He’s fucking Damien from The Omen now LMAO.
Achilles’ mother only prophesized that if he went to war against the Trojans, he would die (a hero). Trump is a greater warrior than Greek legends!
And Biden is the Trojan horse for leftist policies (so I’ve read), so it all fits!!!
1 Like
Damien is not a Russian, so I’m fine with it.
1 Like
I don’t necessarily think these two items are contradictory. For instance, phone polls do not necessarily get conducted by someone in your neighborhood where you might be comfortable putting up a Trump sign. And even if they were, there’s no way to prove its someone you know. Besides which I think we all hate the spam calls.
This is one reason I don’t have 100% confidence in phone polls. I don’t pick up a call unless I recognize the number or am expecting a scheduled call.
Second I think this same phenomenon can work with relatives as well - nobody wants to ruin holidays or reunions with politics. And it is also possible that the “liberal relatives” do not live in the neighborhood. Say, out of state or cities away. In this case it’s not necessary that they see your Trump sign.
Ok, I always wanted to ask this, but what was your specific area of study? Organic synthesis? Supramolecular chemistry? Surface chemistry? Organometallics?
Well, different polls have different margins of error, but just looking at these two bits a couple possible explanations are as follows:
-
the shy Trump voter is not represented or corrected for in the polls, but shows up when asked “do you feel better off today than 4 years ago”
-
People may feel better off than they were, but are so tired of the antics of the incumbent that it outweighs their pocketbook when deciding their vote. It is also possible that they view management of the virus situation as deeply deficient and this moves them more than their pocketbook.
Just because the pocketbook is usually true doesn’t mean it is ALWAYS true.
I agree, but only regarding outcomes beyond the margin of error, so I am not convinced there was a process error over all. I think Nate Silver had a very good explanation.
Moreover, I think the most likely explanation for this in 2016 (as well as the hardest to test for) is a confluence of many factors. Compounding errors are very hard to account for statistically, and this is all the more true when sources of error are disparate instead of all of one type. In other words instead of all sources of error being contained within the poll margins and methods there were significant sources of errors not covered in the polls at all.
Example - polls are off by 2% (margin of error). Trump out performs his polls by 2%, but in addition the turnout drops below predicted levels. This compounds the error in polling - and polls do not typically attempt to estimate turnout, so they would not build it into their margins. On top of that, you had historic confidence of one party which could have depressed turnout even more. Also not something accounted for in polling methods.
Pollsters might swim in the same Waters, but in order to be seen as reliable and thus viewed preferentially they have to be accurate. The outcome is measurable and the people paying attention are the ones interested in accuracy. That isn’t necessarily the same for a news viewer’s preference.
Good Lord no! And they say the risk taking impact of the drugs Trump was on during covid infection are significant?
This is a totally fair take. I don’t agree (about him being able to function for 4 years), but I can see this as plausible.
1 Like