Upload
Login or register

supername

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/24/2012
Stats
Content Ranking:#2234
Comment Ranking:#585
Highest Content Rank:#2237
Highest Comment Rank:#348
Content Thumbs: 264 total,  318 ,  54
Comment Thumbs: 22873 total,  25978 ,  3105
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 20 Content: Peasant → Level 21 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 7.8% (78/1000)
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:0
Content Views:25728
Times Content Favorited:8 times
Total Comments Made:6475
FJ Points:12147
Favorite Tags: trump (2)
the pie

latest user's comments

#40 - I deleted it cause I saw someone else made the same argument a…  [+] (14 replies) 12/03/2016 on just minding his own... +4
#41 - questionableferret (12/03/2016) [-]
I figured as much.

Have a doggo.
User avatar
#131 - hockerz (23 hours ago) [-]
Goddamn that is a photogenic doggo
User avatar
#64 - undeadwill (12/03/2016) [-]
WHO THUMBS DOWN DOGGO
User avatar
#65 - questionableferret (12/03/2016) [-]
Some silly dyke-nigger from the Netherlands named pappanoodles

It's okay though. It helped state my point.
User avatar
#68 - pappanoodles (12/03/2016) [-]
hey you just told me i should and its okay
and for the record , im not a dyke . i'm a male nigger
User avatar
#77 - questionableferret (12/03/2016) [-]
Is it spelled 'dike' then? The whole holland things to keep the water out.

You've got potato niggers in Ireland and snow niggers in Russia. Heard Netherlands is Dike niggers. Sorry, I don't have all that many Netherland-based racial slurs.
User avatar
#202 - pappanoodles (16 hours ago) [-]
its dike yea i believe

you can use ehm... windmills , wooden shoes , ice skating , cheap and stoners
i believe those are all the stereotypes

we're also the tallest males in the world and the best non english english speaking country
User avatar
#204 - questionableferret (15 hours ago) [-]
Also flowers. Big fields of flowers, yes? Or is that Denmark?
#205 - pappanoodles (15 hours ago) [-]
no, the tullips are also us

but i didnt see how you're gonna use that as an insult cuz its pretty
User avatar
#206 - questionableferret (15 hours ago) [-]
Only a country that sucks dick would have that many flowers.

I took it as a challenge.
User avatar
#208 - pappanoodles (15 hours ago) [-]
or a country swimming in pussy , cuz bitches love flowers
User avatar
#71 - undeadwill (12/03/2016) [-]
NO ONE THIUMBS DOWN DOGGO
User avatar
#47 - diemaske (12/03/2016) [-]
That's just so fucking cute.
#42 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
#36 - Comment deleted  [+] (17 replies) 12/03/2016 on just minding his own... 0
#37 - questionableferret has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#38 - questionableferret (12/03/2016) [-]
Oh, deleted your comment I see. Well, TWO can play at that game!

TAKE THIS!
User avatar
#40 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
I deleted it cause I saw someone else made the same argument and I thought you didn't want to re-discuss it.
#41 - questionableferret (12/03/2016) [-]
I figured as much.

Have a doggo.
User avatar
#131 - hockerz (23 hours ago) [-]
Goddamn that is a photogenic doggo
User avatar
#64 - undeadwill (12/03/2016) [-]
WHO THUMBS DOWN DOGGO
User avatar
#65 - questionableferret (12/03/2016) [-]
Some silly dyke-nigger from the Netherlands named pappanoodles

It's okay though. It helped state my point.
User avatar
#68 - pappanoodles (12/03/2016) [-]
hey you just told me i should and its okay
and for the record , im not a dyke . i'm a male nigger
User avatar
#77 - questionableferret (12/03/2016) [-]
Is it spelled 'dike' then? The whole holland things to keep the water out.

You've got potato niggers in Ireland and snow niggers in Russia. Heard Netherlands is Dike niggers. Sorry, I don't have all that many Netherland-based racial slurs.
User avatar
#202 - pappanoodles (16 hours ago) [-]
its dike yea i believe

you can use ehm... windmills , wooden shoes , ice skating , cheap and stoners
i believe those are all the stereotypes

we're also the tallest males in the world and the best non english english speaking country
User avatar
#204 - questionableferret (15 hours ago) [-]
Also flowers. Big fields of flowers, yes? Or is that Denmark?
#205 - pappanoodles (15 hours ago) [-]
no, the tullips are also us

but i didnt see how you're gonna use that as an insult cuz its pretty
User avatar
#206 - questionableferret (15 hours ago) [-]
Only a country that sucks dick would have that many flowers.

I took it as a challenge.
User avatar
#208 - pappanoodles (15 hours ago) [-]
or a country swimming in pussy , cuz bitches love flowers
User avatar
#71 - undeadwill (12/03/2016) [-]
NO ONE THIUMBS DOWN DOGGO
User avatar
#47 - diemaske (12/03/2016) [-]
That's just so fucking cute.
#42 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
#36 - you're basically saying although the system is bad since we ha…  [+] (2 replies) 12/03/2016 on MSM polls were rigged by... 0
User avatar
#37 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
Yes, exactly.
I'm glad we found some common ground in this.
User avatar
#38 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
Yup, good discussion.
#34 - on the side note. Oh, for sure, I think he's lying but for the…  [+] (4 replies) 12/03/2016 on MSM polls were rigged by... 0
User avatar
#35 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
No, that wasn't what I meant.
I meant that in this state that we are right now, the candidates do take this poll seriously and adjust their rallies and efforts to win votes accordingly.
This is the reason I have a problem if they systematically manipulated them.
Can you understand why I have a problem with this?

I'll make an analogy to something else that people complained about AFTER the election:
The Electoral College.
Both things were in place in this election. I have no issue debating about how polls or the EC has problems or if we should change them for future elections, but these were in place before this election. Everyone knew the rules.

I might agree on the polls being flawed, however they are in place right now and the candidates do rely on them. They also have their internal polls but the public polls are important, too.
So again, I have a problem with systematic manipulation of the polls with the intent to spread misinformation to a candidate in order for them to lose.
User avatar
#36 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
you're basically saying although the system is bad since we have it we should try not to make it misleading so candidates don't make bad decisions and lose. I don't have an issue with what you are saying that's fine. The only thing I would say is if we recognize it has problems wouldn't one of the ways to get rid of it is by people thinking it's illegitimate. Yeah, it's bad for the first few candidate who falls fro it but then once it's been shown to become unreliable they will drop the crap polls. Kind of like having to break bad laws to change them like the segregation laws in the civil rights movement. They had to break the laws by sitting in the "white section" to get the people in power to recognize and change it. Now I'm not saying that's what we should do I'm just not convinced that we should do nothing if we think polls like 'who are you going to vote for" are bad there should be something done to drop them and making them illegitimate is one way to get people to stop asking those questions.
User avatar
#37 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
Yes, exactly.
I'm glad we found some common ground in this.
User avatar
#38 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
Yup, good discussion.
#31 - ok 50 is easy there were easily 50 polls wrong in this electio…  [+] (6 replies) 12/03/2016 on MSM polls were rigged by... 0
User avatar
#33 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
The 50 thing wasn't serious. I don't actually want any examples - although.. I did say other than in this election, because the polls were absolutely fuckey since the primaries this time.

I think I agree mostly with you but I still have one question:
As the system is in place right now - this time only talking about "Who will you vote for?"-polls, not to confuse with "who did you vote for?" - and political figures actually do rely on it, don't you see any problem with a party involved in politics knowing this and intentionally manipulating the data? Especially considering that you said that polling data discourages people from voting - I also agree on this?

If you tell me that you have no problem if this "what are you voting for?"-poll would not exist, then I don't really have a problem with it either. I also wouldn't really have any objections if somebody would want to throw this particular poll into the trash.

The problem I have is that it does exist right now and when it is in place, then tampering with it does not sit well with me.

Side note:
I mentioned earlier but in other comments but I just wanted to point it out again:
I think the guy in the picture who claims this is lying.
User avatar
#34 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
on the side note. Oh, for sure, I think he's lying but for the sake of the argument I was trying to make a point.

"I think I agree mostly with you but I still have one question:
As the system is in place right now - this time only talking about "Who will you vote for?"-polls, not to confuse with "who did you vote for?" - and political figures actually do rely on it, don't you see any problem with a party involved in politics knowing this and intentionally manipulating the data? Especially considering that you said that polling data discourages people from voting - I also agree on this?"

I'm sorry if it's obvious, but I am not sure what you are exactly asking/saying, English isn't my first language. Could you rephrase?

If you are saying that there is a difference in "who will you vote for" vs "who did you vote for" then I agree, they are different. I don't like "who will you vote for" polls I think "who did you vote for poll" are fine. If you meant something else I'm not sure.
User avatar
#35 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
No, that wasn't what I meant.
I meant that in this state that we are right now, the candidates do take this poll seriously and adjust their rallies and efforts to win votes accordingly.
This is the reason I have a problem if they systematically manipulated them.
Can you understand why I have a problem with this?

I'll make an analogy to something else that people complained about AFTER the election:
The Electoral College.
Both things were in place in this election. I have no issue debating about how polls or the EC has problems or if we should change them for future elections, but these were in place before this election. Everyone knew the rules.

I might agree on the polls being flawed, however they are in place right now and the candidates do rely on them. They also have their internal polls but the public polls are important, too.
So again, I have a problem with systematic manipulation of the polls with the intent to spread misinformation to a candidate in order for them to lose.
User avatar
#36 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
you're basically saying although the system is bad since we have it we should try not to make it misleading so candidates don't make bad decisions and lose. I don't have an issue with what you are saying that's fine. The only thing I would say is if we recognize it has problems wouldn't one of the ways to get rid of it is by people thinking it's illegitimate. Yeah, it's bad for the first few candidate who falls fro it but then once it's been shown to become unreliable they will drop the crap polls. Kind of like having to break bad laws to change them like the segregation laws in the civil rights movement. They had to break the laws by sitting in the "white section" to get the people in power to recognize and change it. Now I'm not saying that's what we should do I'm just not convinced that we should do nothing if we think polls like 'who are you going to vote for" are bad there should be something done to drop them and making them illegitimate is one way to get people to stop asking those questions.
User avatar
#37 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
Yes, exactly.
I'm glad we found some common ground in this.
User avatar
#38 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
Yup, good discussion.
#28 - Dude, how many examples of polls being wrong do I need to give…  [+] (10 replies) 12/03/2016 on MSM polls were rigged by... 0
User avatar
#30 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
50 examples.

How? Let's abolish all polls.
Tell me how a buisiness man or a military general or an engineer or anyone else can make policies that benefit the majority of a country without any sort of feedback? Just by being elected?
User avatar
#32 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
"Post the guy says we told Trump supporters to say we are not voting for hillary which I am fine with. "
needs to be changed to
"Post the guy says we told Trump supporters to say we are not voting for TRUMP which I am fine with. "
I was typing fast in comment 31
User avatar
#31 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
ok 50 is easy there were easily 50 polls wrong in this election alone. You realize many different pollsters and polling sites poll and there isn't just one poll for every election. CNN does polls, Fox does polls, La times does polls. So there you go just look at all the poll stations that got it wrong this election you'll get your 50.

First of all there seems to be confusion on our distinctions in polling and this is something once clarified I think we can agree on. When you were talking about polls I think maybe you were talking about polls in general when I am talking about polls I am talking about election polls. So a poll that a buisness man gets from his employees saying I want you to do X for the company is different that a poll saying we are going to vote for you or not vote for you. I actually don't have a much of a problem with people being polled about specific issues that they wan't changed I have problems with polls where you are asked "what candidate are you going to vote for". If you go back and read the Post the guy says we told Trump supporters to say we are not voting for hillary which I am fine with. So to clear it up again you are talking about all types of polls I am talking about the polls mentioned in the content.

My biggest problem with polls as described in the content the "who are you going to vote for" polls is that it encourages identity politics for example HC and Trump get back polls showing that whites or Blacks are not voting for them so they will say "we will support the Black communty by doing..." to garner their support and that I think is bad and is one of the things that election polls encourage because it's not fair for other groups. However a poll like "what is an important issue for you?" and then people respond "fixing inner cities is important to me" that type of poll is okay with me because it brings forth specific issues that politicians can address without giving special treatment to certain groups. Even in the latter there will still be some pandering but it's better than pandering to a specific group and as of now it's the only way to get information to politicians. Now that the distinction is cleared up I think we can agree more?
User avatar
#33 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
The 50 thing wasn't serious. I don't actually want any examples - although.. I did say other than in this election, because the polls were absolutely fuckey since the primaries this time.

I think I agree mostly with you but I still have one question:
As the system is in place right now - this time only talking about "Who will you vote for?"-polls, not to confuse with "who did you vote for?" - and political figures actually do rely on it, don't you see any problem with a party involved in politics knowing this and intentionally manipulating the data? Especially considering that you said that polling data discourages people from voting - I also agree on this?

If you tell me that you have no problem if this "what are you voting for?"-poll would not exist, then I don't really have a problem with it either. I also wouldn't really have any objections if somebody would want to throw this particular poll into the trash.

The problem I have is that it does exist right now and when it is in place, then tampering with it does not sit well with me.

Side note:
I mentioned earlier but in other comments but I just wanted to point it out again:
I think the guy in the picture who claims this is lying.
User avatar
#34 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
on the side note. Oh, for sure, I think he's lying but for the sake of the argument I was trying to make a point.

"I think I agree mostly with you but I still have one question:
As the system is in place right now - this time only talking about "Who will you vote for?"-polls, not to confuse with "who did you vote for?" - and political figures actually do rely on it, don't you see any problem with a party involved in politics knowing this and intentionally manipulating the data? Especially considering that you said that polling data discourages people from voting - I also agree on this?"

I'm sorry if it's obvious, but I am not sure what you are exactly asking/saying, English isn't my first language. Could you rephrase?

If you are saying that there is a difference in "who will you vote for" vs "who did you vote for" then I agree, they are different. I don't like "who will you vote for" polls I think "who did you vote for poll" are fine. If you meant something else I'm not sure.
User avatar
#35 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
No, that wasn't what I meant.
I meant that in this state that we are right now, the candidates do take this poll seriously and adjust their rallies and efforts to win votes accordingly.
This is the reason I have a problem if they systematically manipulated them.
Can you understand why I have a problem with this?

I'll make an analogy to something else that people complained about AFTER the election:
The Electoral College.
Both things were in place in this election. I have no issue debating about how polls or the EC has problems or if we should change them for future elections, but these were in place before this election. Everyone knew the rules.

I might agree on the polls being flawed, however they are in place right now and the candidates do rely on them. They also have their internal polls but the public polls are important, too.
So again, I have a problem with systematic manipulation of the polls with the intent to spread misinformation to a candidate in order for them to lose.
User avatar
#36 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
you're basically saying although the system is bad since we have it we should try not to make it misleading so candidates don't make bad decisions and lose. I don't have an issue with what you are saying that's fine. The only thing I would say is if we recognize it has problems wouldn't one of the ways to get rid of it is by people thinking it's illegitimate. Yeah, it's bad for the first few candidate who falls fro it but then once it's been shown to become unreliable they will drop the crap polls. Kind of like having to break bad laws to change them like the segregation laws in the civil rights movement. They had to break the laws by sitting in the "white section" to get the people in power to recognize and change it. Now I'm not saying that's what we should do I'm just not convinced that we should do nothing if we think polls like 'who are you going to vote for" are bad there should be something done to drop them and making them illegitimate is one way to get people to stop asking those questions.
User avatar
#37 - dudulli (12/03/2016) [-]
Yes, exactly.
I'm glad we found some common ground in this.
User avatar
#38 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
Yup, good discussion.
User avatar
#29 - supername (12/03/2016) [-]
always wrong*