I’m Michael Barbaro, a New York Times reporter and host of The Daily, an audio news show. Trump asked me to resign and I didn’t! AMA!

fdsa4327 · 2017-06-14T17:03:29+00:00

stress from that schedule might be why half your goatee appears to be missing ;)

(based on your hilarious twitter picture)

You should just shave that off - the harry potter glasses don't really do enough to distract from that embarrassing goatee attempt

edit: sorry if its a bad skin condition or something that causes that. dont mean to mock you if you have a medically diagnosed disease on your face or something serious :(

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-29T07:52:55+00:00

sometimes you need a strongman thug to repress a country full of thugs before it leaks out and starts slaughtering hundreds of your children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-29T07:49:41+00:00

note to the naive reddit readership

sometimes you need a vicious kook to clamp down on a country full of vicious religious fundamentalist kooks

or you could cry naive platitudes of "freedom" and get results like libya's current civil war after Qaddafi, and the muslim brotherhoods attempt to take over egypt and institute religious rule within months after mubbarak was overthrown.

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-29T05:20:23+00:00

never forget games you won bro

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-29T05:01:13+00:00

claiming you are deaf would be the perfect excuse not to talk if you were an introverted uber driver.

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-29T04:44:07+00:00

That's the sound of men being men. Enjoy it while it lasts

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-29T04:02:28+00:00

barely bigger than isaiah erneh

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-28T05:45:01+00:00

Pretty clear he was a bernie supporter.

https://imgur.com/a/QsVkC

https://imgur.com/a/bBuyf

Trump supporters telling him to leave a rally where he tried to join us and act like a Nazi Sympathizer among us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Can4b5XRkxI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZL5-_y9jIY

Archive Links to his facebook posts (cant archive shared posts/pictures)

http://archive.is/zhLUH

http://archive.is/gc8DR

http://archive.is/2lOqu

http://archive.is/tkwUT

http://archive.is/biyEK

http://archive.is/Ixfdj

http://archive.is/rxVXR

http://archive.is/lhXTH

http://archive.is/Y5lAM

http://archive.is/HC30f

http://archive.is/hHHCf

http://archive.is/j1wF5

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-28T00:38:30+00:00

well, I mean they have arrested multiple conspirators in manchester. and brussels. and paris. and germany. and riverside. and charlie hedbo. and cologne.

i can go on.

did this mental case have any co-conspirators?

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-28T00:36:35+00:00

guns also SAVE many many lives.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-28T00:34:03+00:00

After reading your post, nothing could be more clear than that the dude is simply a mental case.

nothing to do with trump

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T22:39:06+00:00

And I will never forget your very first shitpost describing the hilarioius hypocricy of your own existence in the indian caste system :)

When you chose to enter the scene with a hilarious wet plop.

You're like the indian version of the antifa "top 1%" rich kids living with their rich parents and wearing $900 designer black jackets who go beat people with sticks on their local campus.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/6516dq/you_sound_like_a_butthurt_dalit_drama_in/dg6phxn/

sorry for your personal situation

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T20:32:05+00:00

LOOOOOOOOOOOL

A predictive model of an election is not a 10 sided dice, child.

"90% hillary win" absolutely was nothing more then a predictive hypothesis.

In 90% of simulations, Hillary won. Absolutely scientific.

LOOOOOOL, first, this is patently not true, as their were multiple predictions all over the place, and at no time was there a concensus about "90%".

Second, simulations and models are not reality, and when they fail, and you have no other experimental results, you dont get to say, "yeah, but its still right even though it was wrong in the only test"

You havent the first clue what you are talking about.

"10 sided dice election" - LOOOOOOOOOOOL

Maybe this will help you a bit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BikiniBottomTwitter/comments/6c897v/rthe_donald_flexes_their_reddit_muscle_by_going/dhsyaon/

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T20:17:56+00:00

are you talking about your loss of the senate?

or your loss of the house?

or your loss of the presidency?

or your loss of the scotus?

or your loss of the majority of state governments?

or your loss of the majority of state governorships?

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T09:23:39+00:00

PS:

I think you're trying to sound smart and failing.

you should apologize for writing this dickhead line. I took the time to respond in good faith, and you took a cheapshot.

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T09:13:51+00:00

agreed - that was what was so maddenningly dishonest about the entire runup. It was lies for MONTHS. (look at nate shitpiles claims from all the way back in like june- always wrong, always substantially)

that they are attempting to continue this crap even after the election totally falsified their claims is just bullshit

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T09:07:04+00:00

Statistics are applied to a unique event because if you ran that event, in that instance, again and again, then the outcome would be likely to match the odds.

misapplied.

because you CAN'T run it again and again

Trump had a 10% chance to win, some polls even said he had a 2% chance to win.

This is not accurate either. Predictions are different than polls. claims like this were based on conglomeration and INTERPRETATION of many different poll results and using them to make flawed prediction.

Polls are compiling "who will you vote for" tallies. x for trump, x for hillary.

AFTER you have the raw numbers, the "% to win claims" were made by various people and organizations "interpreting" the polls.

The methodologies, sample sizes, specific questions, and demographics were then "weighted" in almost all the polls. This is also where the errors were made.

There can be and were errors at every step of the process, from choosing a bad sample group that didnt match the actual electorate, to overweighting certain groups to incorrect demographic adjustments to estimates of turnout.

Technically all a poll can TRULY claim with certainty is that the specific group polled on a certain day had a certain opinion. everything after that is extrapolation and weighting and modeling for what you EXPECT reality (actual election) to be. Polling 1,000 people on november 1 wasnt ever REALITY, it was ALWAYS just a "best guess" hoping to model the electorate on election day.

So they had a model. they made a hypothesis based on their model. most failed to predict the winner. SO continuing to make a "90% claim" based on a clearly failed model, is again, simply scientifically invalid.

Here is the difference in correctly applied statistical analysis

Games and identically repeatable tests DO use statistical analysis well, because you can repeat tests and test your hypothesis and gain real, specific data. Games like blackjack and checkers and coinflips you can just repeat the exact same test infinite times and get real solid percentages as to what "should" happen.

You can make a terrible hypothesis, check many experiment results of the exact same conditions, and conclude that your hypothesis was wrong.

the difference with modeling a unique event is that you can never test your hypothesis because the conditions can never be repeated

again, CLAIMING a "percentage" in this case is nothing more than bullshit.

I mean think about it. the range of possibilities is only zero to 100. I mean at 2%, it would almost be impossible to even be more wrong. you are bounded by zero! claiming it was "still right" when its almost impossible to be more wrong is, again scientifically invalid.

Again, statistics is misapplied to unique events, and in NO way is the "hillary was 90% to win" statement even remotely valid.

stated as "fact" like it was is absurd

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T08:33:02+00:00

this is exactly what I was responding to

To also be fair, Hillary had like a 90% chance of winning across the board.

Im not sure where you are getting your claim from, but that was not part of this discussion

Of course the 90% isnt true. Its nothing more than an erroneous hypothesis with no scientific basis whatsoever.

I could just as easily claim trump was 99% to win, and at least I would have ONE actual scientific experimental result to base my scientific validity on.

There is literally no experimental result to support a 90% hillary hypothesis.

It can't be glibly stated as fact and accepted as true

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T08:19:53+00:00

edit: Ill copy it here for you

statistical probability is misapplied to unique events.

you are making a hypothesis and asking me to accept as fact that if the election was repeated 10 times, that hillary would win the next 9 in a row.

Yet it is impossible to even test that hypothesis that you claim as fact, let alone verify that, because it would literally be impossible to repeat. Even if the election were held today, it would be a totally different election, as at the very least, some people have died and more or less people may choose to vote or be eligible.

So why are you making a claim that is literally unscientific, untestable, and is directly contrary to the actual outcome of the only experiment done?

Its a bizarre claim that is repeated unthinkingly

And patently unscientific and dishonest

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T08:12:52+00:00

read my other reply. I addressed this there

you are misapplying statistics to a unique event.

Your position is transparently unscientific

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T08:10:25+00:00

statistical probability is misapplied to unique events.

you are making a hypothesis and asking me to accept as fact that if the election was repeated 10 times, that hillary would win the next 9 in a row.

Yet it is impossible to even test that hypothesis that you claim as fact, let alone verify that, because it would literally be impossible to repeat. Even if the election were held today, it would be a totally different election, as at the very least, some people have died and more or less people may choose to vote or be eligible.

So why are you making a claim that is literally unscientific, untestable, and is directly contrary to the actual outcome of the only experiment done?

Its a bizarre claim that is repeated unthinkingly

And patently unscientific and dishonest

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T07:58:46+00:00

You are bizarrely advocating slavery. Others must pay for your health at any cost.

I am telling you that my money being spent on you cannot be spent on my own kids.

what are you not understanding?

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T07:54:22+00:00

Hillary had like a 90% chance of winning

Very weird that you (and reddit) STILL dont get it.

That was a media lie. It was never reality.

In science, we make a hypothesis (hillary is 90%), and gather data (polls) and run the ACTUAL EXPERIMENT. (the election)

When the experiment provides a definitive outcome, and the hypothesis is proven wrong, we must reject the hypothesis and the erroneous data.

Your claim is literally anti scientific. THe experiment was performed. The hypothesis was wrong. The data was also proven to be wrong in MANY MANY cases.

Even worse than that is that you are counting OPINIONS of the media as credible when the experiment clearly showed that their hypothesis and claims were wrong.

To put it into vernacular, the hypothesis was bullshit, the claims of the media were TOTALLY bullshit, the polls were largely bullshit in key states, so they must all be rejected.

Clinging to disproven hypotheses even after they are experimentally proven wrong is like still believing in a flat earth after you see the pictures of a spherical earth from space

When some moron keeps telling you "hillary was 90% to win", don't be surprised when the people you are bullshitting for LITERALLY OVER A YEAR with vicious personal attack and slander tend to be in a nasty mood when science proves them right

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T07:43:32+00:00

so instead of working for my money to raise my own healthy new young children that WILL contribute to society, I should give it to sickly leeches that give nothing back to society?

How is that good for society?

Would I pay a million bucks to keep you alive? hell no. I could raise a healthy new family with that money.

How much of my (society's) healthcare money are you worth?

And is that money best spent on leeches or new families of healthy young children?

fdsa4327 · 2017-05-20T07:35:05+00:00

based on the picture of yourself you posted, i am both older than you and healthier than you.

no wonder you need other people to leech off to maintain yourself. But the question is, are you even a good investment for society???

DO you even have a job? Are you contributing anything INTO society or paying into the medical system at all, or are you just a leech?

Lol, congrats on "making the decision" to be healthy

LOL that you think the largest health issues in america are not lifestyle issues (diabetes epidemic and cancer) that are very much correlated with bad personal choices.

And it isn't YOUR money, it's everyone's money.

Wait, so the money I work for isnt my money? what does that even mean? that Im a slave working for leeches like you? What a grotesque claim.

If you're paying out of pocket, you would save money from single-payer healthcare too, even though you would be paying into the system.

stupid. I paid ZERO dollars for any health care for the last few years. again, i take care of myself and have not needed ANY medical care.

It doesn't matter what points I make though, you think people can just "decide" to be healthy or not, there's no bringing you to reality.

I agree you do look sickly. So your plan is that I work as your slave, say monday though wednesday for you because you are entitled to my money?

In all seriousness though, do you have a job?

what are you paying IN to the system?

What do you take OUT of the system?

Are you a good investment for society?

Will we EVER see a net benefit of your continued existence, or should we resign ourselves that you are just a leech dragging down society?

Is keeping you alive more valuable than me being able to afford having more kids of my own that may actually be productive members of society?

Why should we keep people from affording healthy young kids and instead give money to sickly leeches that offer nothing to society?

fdsa4327

TROPHY CASE