Two women, naked from the waist up, burst into a midtown Manhattan polling station early Tuesday, shouting: “Out of our polls Trump, out of our polls Trump!”
The women were soon escorted out of the basement of P.S. 59 at 233 E. 56th Street, where Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is expected to vote later.
The women wore jeans but no tops. One had the word “Trump” near her collarbone and the words “Grab your balls” scrawled on her belly.
Police charged the two with electioneering (an activity prohibited under New York law that includes wearing badges and signs supporting a candidate to a polling place) and booked them at a local precinct.
The poll workers took the ruckus in stride, barely looking up at the chanting. Other voters turned around from their white booths, trying to see what was going on.
Despite the commotion, the mood in the gymnasium remained mostly calm.
Their identities were not immediately known. It's not clear if they will face charges.
#1: misterwhite To: All (#0)
misterwhite posted on 2016-11-08 11:22:02 Reply Private Reply
#2: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#1)
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-08 11:50:51 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#2)
They don't look like the breeding type ... if you know what I mean.
misterwhite posted on 2016-11-08 12:59:21 Reply Private Reply
#4: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#1)
WTF does that even mean?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-08 21:59:57 Reply Private Reply
#5: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
Say it, bitch. President TRUMP.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-11-08 22:24:45 Reply Private Reply
#6: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 06:34:49 Reply Private Reply
#7: Roscoe To: GrandIsland (#5)
Can you imagine how terrible CF's hangover will be?
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 06:37:02 Reply Private Reply
#8: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
I have no idea. I'm still trying to figure out this guy:
misterwhite posted on 2016-11-09 10:33:26 Reply Private Reply
#9: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#5)
I already said Trump was preferable to Hitlery, bitch.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 11:37:52 Reply Private Reply
#10: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#6)
That they had incentives to get it right. Do you think the election results indicate otherwise?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 11:39:42 Reply Private Reply
#11: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
Given that they were so badly wrong, their alleged "incentives" apparently weren't sufficient for them to get correct results. And isn't it odd how their incorrect results favored Hillary?
Better luck in four years.
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 12:02:43 Reply Private Reply
#12: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#11)
Who ever said incentives always led to success? Not me.
My luck was just fine, thanks: libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47706, "If your state's in play, vote Trump (hold your nose if it helps) - if not, consider the Constitution Party"
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 12:10:23 Reply Private Reply
#13: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#12)
The "incentives" led to massive across-the-board failure? Fascinating.
Oh, and your candidate Darrell Castle's "luck" wasn't "just fine."
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 12:32:48 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#11)
If this was simply a mistake you'd think that, statistically, half the time the polls would have favored Trump. Go figure.
Last night, ABC was discussing these polling errors and how they and everyone else got it so horribly wrong. (One of the conclusions was that the Trump voters lied to them.)
Anyways, the funniest line of the night was from Stephanopoulos when he followed that segment with a report that a majority of people really didn't want a wall on our southern border ... according to an ABC exit poll.
You can't make this shit up.
misterwhite posted on 2016-11-09 12:47:13 Reply Private Reply
#15: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#13)
The Cleveland Browns have clear incentives to win - but don't.
I'm sure he didn't run to win, and I didn't vote for him with the idea he'd win.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 13:28:17 Reply Private Reply
#16: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom, AKA tooconservative (#15)
I'd be embarrassed to call myself tooconservative too. After all your wrong predictions.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-11-09 13:30:03 Reply Private Reply
#17: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#14)
That an error is systematic doesn't imply that it's intentional.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 13:30:29 Reply Private Reply
#18: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 13:49:56 Reply Private Reply
#19: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#17)
Sure it does. Something done systematically is done intentionally.
Moot point. I never said that.
I said that a mistake in the polls, statistically, would favor Trump half the time and not favor Trump half the time. Almost all the polls did not favor Trump. Meaning it wasn't a mistake.
misterwhite posted on 2016-11-09 15:06:02 Reply Private Reply
#20: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#18)
Irrelevant to the noncontradiction between having an incentive and failing. You lose, again.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 15:09:28 Reply Private Reply
#21: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#19)
Wrong as usual: "Systematic error is a series of errors in accuracy that are consistent in a certain direction, while random errors are those which are caused by random and unpredictable variation in an experiment. Generally, systematic error is introduced by a problem that is consistent through an entire experiment." - https://www.reference.com/science/difference-between-systematic-random-error-3bacc365403fb210
Only if you define "mistake" so as to exclude systematic errors - but then, you are a fan of using your own personal daffynitions.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 15:14:51 Reply Private Reply
#22: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#20)
Bzzzzt. You lose, again.
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 15:15:58 Reply Private Reply
#23: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
Such as bias and dishonesty. You lose, again.
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 15:17:07 Reply Private Reply
#24: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#23)
It's your contention that bias and dishonesty are the only sources of systematic error?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 15:22:57 Reply Private Reply
#25: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#24)
Nope. I'm still waiting for you to describe your mysterious and undefined "source of systematic error."
[crickets]
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 15:26:43 Reply Private Reply
#26: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#25)
Here's an obvious possibility: a negative correlation between supporting Trump and being willing to pick up the phone when a pollster calls.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 15:34:49 Reply Private Reply
#27: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#26)
A self-serving hypothetical invented out of thin air with NO support, as opposed to massive and widespread oversampling of registered Democrats across multiple polls. Try again.
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 15:39:11 Reply Private Reply
#28: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#27)
All that's required to support my statement (as opposed to any straw men you may wish to battle): "That an error is systematic doesn't imply that it's intentional."
Is this what you're babbling about?
"In our survey, registered Democrats were much likelier to respond than Republicans. Registered Democrats had an eight-point registration advantage in our unweighted sample, even though it was representative by other measures.
"Mrs. Clinton would have actually led in The Upshot’s survey if it, like most others, didn’t weight by party registration." (emphasis added) - www.nytimes.com/interacti.../upshot/florida-poll.html
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 16:47:39 Reply Private Reply
#29: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#28)
Keep going: "One possibility is that the public polls are understating Mr. Trump’s support because registered Republicans aren’t answering the telephone... (So that's where you stole your argument.) But based on my reporting, this is probably not what’s going on. Private pollsters are conducting surveys using similar methods, and they’re not seeing this. And after all, our poll found that registered Republicans were extremely likely to indicate their support for Mr. Trump — not exactly the shy Trump voter."
I almost feel sorry for you.
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 20:54:32 Reply Private Reply
#30: CZ82 To: Roscoe (#29)
CZ82 posted on 2016-11-09 20:57:38 Reply Private Reply
#31: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#29)
'Women who voted for Trump might have been especially reluctant to tell pollsters, said David Paleologos of Suffolk University. The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll [the guys who had Trump in the lead - CF] corroborated that: “Women who said they backed Trump were particularly less likely to say they would be comfortable talking to a pollster about their vote.”' - libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48598
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 21:46:41 Reply Private Reply
#32: ConservingFreedom To: CZ82 (#30)
Sorry, Roscoe says you don't exist.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 21:47:28 Reply Private Reply
#33: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
Thanks for the pointless non sequitur.
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 22:06:07 Reply Private Reply
#34: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 22:10:02 Reply Private Reply
#35: Roscoe To: CZ82 (#30)
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 22:11:35 Reply Private Reply
#36: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#33)
Have a hankie.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-09 22:16:45 Reply Private Reply
#37: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
[crickets]
Roscoe posted on 2016-11-09 22:21:18 Reply Private Reply
#38: CZ82 To: Roscoe (#35)
CZ82 posted on 2016-11-10 06:40:25 Reply Private Reply