TexasCHLforum.com

AEA wrote:

steve817 wrote:AEA, where did you pull this from?

From the site it was on.
I participated thru the whole thing, hitting "Strongly Disagree" or whatever it was as often as possible thru the entire speech as I knew everything he said about anything would be lies. Looks like I was correct in my assumption.

Really makes you wonder how he won the vote? Or, as others have suggested....."Did he"?

Even the Dems never got to positive on anything he said.

At the end, I took that screenshot of the final graph to post here.

Was it Bing Pulse?

steve817 wrote:

AEA wrote:

steve817 wrote:AEA, where did you pull this from?

From the site it was on.
I participated thru the whole thing, hitting "Strongly Disagree" or whatever it was as often as possible thru the entire speech as I knew everything he said about anything would be lies. Looks like I was correct in my assumption.

Really makes you wonder how he won the vote? Or, as others have suggested....."Did he"?

Even the Dems never got to positive on anything he said.

At the end, I took that screenshot of the final graph to post here.

Was it Bing Pulse?

Here's the interesting part. I saw the same graphs, but the data didn't seem to correlate with the bar charts underneath it,but they were social media polls, not the live "pulse" data. I was confused. At the end of the SOTU, the graph looked like the one originally posted here. It gets better. Here's the graph as posted on Bing tonight:



It seems to paint an entirely different picture. It follows the bar charts (which were supposedly from all social media sources) much more closely. I'm questioning whether they actually doctored something ex post facto.

It was BING something, I really don't remember exactly what it was as I only went there this once. But it probably was BING Plus.

With regard to the above charts, you can see they changed the bar on the left to be from Negative to Positive........whereas the original graph had a Negative section and a Positive section and it never got into the Positive section.......
The graphs themselves are correct as I posted, they just changed the scaling on the left side of the graph (for the Left Side! LOL).

So yes they are doctoring the picture to make it look entirely different to show that there is at least some support for the anointed one.

I'm glad I was thoughtful enough to grab that screenshot of the final graph (Real Time).........sure shows you how 2 faced these groups are!

And that Real Time graph (as it was running) had the same 2 sections (Positive & Negative) thru the entire speech. And as I said, it depicted that nothing he said ever got it into the positive section.

I don't believe everything thing I hear in polls, but it's kind a refreshing to see that neither side liked the gun ban speech.

RoyGBiv wrote:I spent a nice evening with my mom, enjoying dinner and doing some handiwork around her house. Then I came home and watched Justified on the DVR. I thought the State of the Union speech and the funeral pyre of a crazy COP killer made very complementary bookends.

That pretty much describes my reaction too. I still haven't heard but maybe 10 seconds of it. I read part of a transcript of it, but that only lasted a few minutes and ended when I decided that he didn't say anything new. Same old commie crapola.

SherwoodForest wrote:Nearly 13 million people particpating - and the Great One couldn't even get the Democrats' average out of the negative zone .

Pray tell......how did this guy manage win the Nov 6th election ???.....or did he..................really.......win ?

It was nearly 13 million votes, not people. So, if on average each person voted 20 times, about 650,000 participated.

I voted as fast as it would allow (about every 5-10 seconds or so) throughout the entire speech. I did that purposely because I knew that everything he was going to say would be all Lies!

So if everyone was doing as I was, it could be even fewer total people participating.........

And, how many of the people that were participating was in his base group of voters?
I'm guessing not many since he has not provided computers to them all yet with free internet......
Maybe he will when he sees these results!

The graphs on this page where it said posative is the zero line

I was amazed at how closely Republicans and Indies tracked. I was also surprised to see how closely men and women tracked. I then was shocked to see that the Rep., Indie, Men, and Women tracks were almost identical. So, what are Democrats?

grumble wrote:

steve817 wrote:

AEA wrote: At the end, I took that screenshot of the final graph to post here.

Was it Bing Pulse?

It seems to paint an entirely different picture. It follows the bar charts (which were supposedly from all social media sources) much more closely. I'm questioning whether they actually doctored something ex post facto.

Gentlemen, ladies, call me a skeptic, but I don't believe ANY of the garbage put out by the likes of Bing (microsoft), or Google, or ANY of the "mainstream" media anymore. It's all too biased for me, and it seems that the intent of the information covered and released these days, is meant to do absolutely nothing more than manipulate people for political purposes.

Information integrity, like Elvis, has left the building.

It's too bad that we have sunk so low that the better manipulator wins the "prize".