Upload
Login or register

iFail

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 19
Date Signed Up:11/24/2009
Last Login:9/27/2016
Location:Scotland
Stats
Comment Ranking:#6926
Highest Content Rank:#1314
Highest Comment Rank:#268
Content Thumbs: 4410 total,  5059 ,  649
Comment Thumbs: 21322 total,  22871 ,  1549
Content Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
Level 144 Content: Faptastic → Level 145 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 85.7% (857/1000)
Level 320 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:11
Content Views:5998
Total Comments Made:2025
FJ Points:8761

latest user's comments

#129 - So, even if she does win - you'll doubt she did so honestly?  [+] (5 replies) 08/11/2016 on Zamuelic Ystuslyiv Undextus +1
User avatar
#131 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
I would definitely doubt she did so honestly. Considering there is strong evidence that she had the DNC primaries rigged, it would only be the next logical step for her to attempt to rig the actual election. Some people still argue whether or not Obama rigged the 2012 elections what with the Ohio turnouts reading that he got over 100% of the votes in some counties. Clinton could very well see that similar circumstances happen.

No guarantee of it though. Sure, she may win without election fraud. But I doubt it.
User avatar
#133 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
Alright, just wondered - I don't really want to get into the ups-and-downs of both candidates - but how about the opinion polls? Last time I checked she was leading in most of them, but surely they're somewhat impervious to rigging?

Regardless, I think your initial comment is still pretty biased - I just wanted to point that out, but after speaking with you and hearing you really don't think Clinton will win on any other basis apart from; she's a woman; biased media favours her; and she's not Trump - I think that's somewhat ludicrous. But I can't tell you to feel any differently, you clearly have a very passionate case for Trump, and although I wish you all the best, I really think you should reconsider that statement - that 50%> of the American would do such a thing, and that 0% would have any interest in her political agenda.
User avatar
#138 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
Oh, my initial comment is incredibly biased. There is nobody left on FJ for me to convince. This late in the game there is nothing I could say or do to swing anybody here one way or the other, so I'll just say what I want. The only way people will change their minds now is if something happens between now and November where Clinton or Trump does something either miraculously good or insanely bad, though I'd bank that Clinton will probably get destroyed on-stage against Trump and that could very well swing voters. But as for me there is nothing left for me to do but circlejerk, piss people off, and other general means of douchebaggery.

The thing about the recent polls is that you have to look at both the polling methods and the people running the polls. A lot of the polls performed are done with flaws. The most common one is self-reporting and opt-in surveys. This only attracts certain people and presents biases among the correspondents. The other issue, people running the polls, presents a different problem where the results could be falsely reported, the polls could be run with the intent to take samples that heavily support what the people running it support, or simply they don't know how to run polls. That being said, a lot of the polls that keep popping up are from mainstream news corporations and are opt-in surveys. This isn't quite rigging polls, but it is doing them in such a way as to give Clinton favorable numbers. It would make sense that most of the people who watch CNN and care to opt in to their surveys would be quite the Democrats and would have a strong bias towards Clinton, and this is before the possibility that the corporations themselves could intentionally tamper with the results. Remember: back in December of 2015 the various sites like ABC, CNN, MSNBC all did online reader surveys for the election and Trump won in all of them by a huge majority, prompting these sites to take down the live polling results and later put up new "results" that claimed Sanders was the winner. There has been no indication that they have stopped, because it isn't illegal for them to do this and they have no obligation to stop if they are using underhanded tactics.
#298 - anon (08/12/2016) [-]
It likely won't matter if Trump annihilates Clinton in the debates because the mainstream media will only report on the parts that fit their narrative, and it's pretty clear where their bias lies, and since not everybody will watch the debates live...
User avatar
#145 - iFail (08/12/2016) [-]
Well, what I meant to say is, it's so dangerously biased that I think it sacrifices the integrity of your point - the notion that nobody supports Clinton for her politics and that the majority American voting population (approx 241 million - so over 120 million Americans) are voting for her just because they've been taken in by biased media. That not one of those Americans is a freethinker who believes in Clinton's political stance; but that all those in favour of Trump are. It's just false.
#127 - So - you think if Hilary wins the election, that it won't be b…  [+] (9 replies) 08/11/2016 on Zamuelic Ystuslyiv Undextus +1
#167 - brainbug (08/12/2016) [-]
Average IQ is 99 in america.
#334 - anon (08/12/2016) [-]
iirc it's a fair amount higher if you ignore the black population which would bring our average IQ score up to fourth highest in the world, tied with Japan
User avatar
#128 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
You are right, my faith is incredibly low. But here, I'll do you one better: Clinton has connections to the company that runs and operates most of the electronic voting systems in the US. It is well within her realm of power to have the elections in, say, Florida or Ohio rigged. In fact it is plausible enough that outright denying the possibility just demonstrates naivete. Clinton has all the right connections in all the right places and I don't think that's a coincidence.
User avatar
#129 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
So, even if she does win - you'll doubt she did so honestly?
User avatar
#131 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
I would definitely doubt she did so honestly. Considering there is strong evidence that she had the DNC primaries rigged, it would only be the next logical step for her to attempt to rig the actual election. Some people still argue whether or not Obama rigged the 2012 elections what with the Ohio turnouts reading that he got over 100% of the votes in some counties. Clinton could very well see that similar circumstances happen.

No guarantee of it though. Sure, she may win without election fraud. But I doubt it.
User avatar
#133 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
Alright, just wondered - I don't really want to get into the ups-and-downs of both candidates - but how about the opinion polls? Last time I checked she was leading in most of them, but surely they're somewhat impervious to rigging?

Regardless, I think your initial comment is still pretty biased - I just wanted to point that out, but after speaking with you and hearing you really don't think Clinton will win on any other basis apart from; she's a woman; biased media favours her; and she's not Trump - I think that's somewhat ludicrous. But I can't tell you to feel any differently, you clearly have a very passionate case for Trump, and although I wish you all the best, I really think you should reconsider that statement - that 50%> of the American would do such a thing, and that 0% would have any interest in her political agenda.
User avatar
#138 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
Oh, my initial comment is incredibly biased. There is nobody left on FJ for me to convince. This late in the game there is nothing I could say or do to swing anybody here one way or the other, so I'll just say what I want. The only way people will change their minds now is if something happens between now and November where Clinton or Trump does something either miraculously good or insanely bad, though I'd bank that Clinton will probably get destroyed on-stage against Trump and that could very well swing voters. But as for me there is nothing left for me to do but circlejerk, piss people off, and other general means of douchebaggery.

The thing about the recent polls is that you have to look at both the polling methods and the people running the polls. A lot of the polls performed are done with flaws. The most common one is self-reporting and opt-in surveys. This only attracts certain people and presents biases among the correspondents. The other issue, people running the polls, presents a different problem where the results could be falsely reported, the polls could be run with the intent to take samples that heavily support what the people running it support, or simply they don't know how to run polls. That being said, a lot of the polls that keep popping up are from mainstream news corporations and are opt-in surveys. This isn't quite rigging polls, but it is doing them in such a way as to give Clinton favorable numbers. It would make sense that most of the people who watch CNN and care to opt in to their surveys would be quite the Democrats and would have a strong bias towards Clinton, and this is before the possibility that the corporations themselves could intentionally tamper with the results. Remember: back in December of 2015 the various sites like ABC, CNN, MSNBC all did online reader surveys for the election and Trump won in all of them by a huge majority, prompting these sites to take down the live polling results and later put up new "results" that claimed Sanders was the winner. There has been no indication that they have stopped, because it isn't illegal for them to do this and they have no obligation to stop if they are using underhanded tactics.
#298 - anon (08/12/2016) [-]
It likely won't matter if Trump annihilates Clinton in the debates because the mainstream media will only report on the parts that fit their narrative, and it's pretty clear where their bias lies, and since not everybody will watch the debates live...
User avatar
#145 - iFail (08/12/2016) [-]
Well, what I meant to say is, it's so dangerously biased that I think it sacrifices the integrity of your point - the notion that nobody supports Clinton for her politics and that the majority American voting population (approx 241 million - so over 120 million Americans) are voting for her just because they've been taken in by biased media. That not one of those Americans is a freethinker who believes in Clinton's political stance; but that all those in favour of Trump are. It's just false.
#119 - That's not the point I'm making - what I'm trying to tell you …  [+] (11 replies) 08/11/2016 on Zamuelic Ystuslyiv Undextus +1
User avatar
#122 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
I really wish you were right, but people don't support Clinton because of her policies or her views. People supported Sanders for his policies and views. People support Johnson or Stein for their policies and views. But people don't support Clinton because of that. They support her because A) she's a woman, B) the media portrays her as something better, C) she's a Democrat, or D) she's not Trump. It always boils down to one or more of those four. I am yet to see somebody who supports Clinton because of her tax plans or something.

I can respect people who support Johnson or Stein, to a certain degree. Most of the people I've met that support them do so for their policies, not their platform. But with Clinton they always resort to any reasoning they can BUT her. It never fails.
User avatar
#127 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
So - you think if Hilary wins the election, that it won't be because the American people have come to the conclusion she'll be an effective political leader, moreso than Trump, but rather it's because she's a woman, and they've been wrongfully influenced by media? Correct me if I've got mixed up there - but that's a pretty low level of faith to have in your countrymen.
#167 - brainbug (08/12/2016) [-]
Average IQ is 99 in america.
#334 - anon (08/12/2016) [-]
iirc it's a fair amount higher if you ignore the black population which would bring our average IQ score up to fourth highest in the world, tied with Japan
User avatar
#128 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
You are right, my faith is incredibly low. But here, I'll do you one better: Clinton has connections to the company that runs and operates most of the electronic voting systems in the US. It is well within her realm of power to have the elections in, say, Florida or Ohio rigged. In fact it is plausible enough that outright denying the possibility just demonstrates naivete. Clinton has all the right connections in all the right places and I don't think that's a coincidence.
User avatar
#129 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
So, even if she does win - you'll doubt she did so honestly?
User avatar
#131 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
I would definitely doubt she did so honestly. Considering there is strong evidence that she had the DNC primaries rigged, it would only be the next logical step for her to attempt to rig the actual election. Some people still argue whether or not Obama rigged the 2012 elections what with the Ohio turnouts reading that he got over 100% of the votes in some counties. Clinton could very well see that similar circumstances happen.

No guarantee of it though. Sure, she may win without election fraud. But I doubt it.
User avatar
#133 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
Alright, just wondered - I don't really want to get into the ups-and-downs of both candidates - but how about the opinion polls? Last time I checked she was leading in most of them, but surely they're somewhat impervious to rigging?

Regardless, I think your initial comment is still pretty biased - I just wanted to point that out, but after speaking with you and hearing you really don't think Clinton will win on any other basis apart from; she's a woman; biased media favours her; and she's not Trump - I think that's somewhat ludicrous. But I can't tell you to feel any differently, you clearly have a very passionate case for Trump, and although I wish you all the best, I really think you should reconsider that statement - that 50%> of the American would do such a thing, and that 0% would have any interest in her political agenda.
User avatar
#138 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
Oh, my initial comment is incredibly biased. There is nobody left on FJ for me to convince. This late in the game there is nothing I could say or do to swing anybody here one way or the other, so I'll just say what I want. The only way people will change their minds now is if something happens between now and November where Clinton or Trump does something either miraculously good or insanely bad, though I'd bank that Clinton will probably get destroyed on-stage against Trump and that could very well swing voters. But as for me there is nothing left for me to do but circlejerk, piss people off, and other general means of douchebaggery.

The thing about the recent polls is that you have to look at both the polling methods and the people running the polls. A lot of the polls performed are done with flaws. The most common one is self-reporting and opt-in surveys. This only attracts certain people and presents biases among the correspondents. The other issue, people running the polls, presents a different problem where the results could be falsely reported, the polls could be run with the intent to take samples that heavily support what the people running it support, or simply they don't know how to run polls. That being said, a lot of the polls that keep popping up are from mainstream news corporations and are opt-in surveys. This isn't quite rigging polls, but it is doing them in such a way as to give Clinton favorable numbers. It would make sense that most of the people who watch CNN and care to opt in to their surveys would be quite the Democrats and would have a strong bias towards Clinton, and this is before the possibility that the corporations themselves could intentionally tamper with the results. Remember: back in December of 2015 the various sites like ABC, CNN, MSNBC all did online reader surveys for the election and Trump won in all of them by a huge majority, prompting these sites to take down the live polling results and later put up new "results" that claimed Sanders was the winner. There has been no indication that they have stopped, because it isn't illegal for them to do this and they have no obligation to stop if they are using underhanded tactics.
#298 - anon (08/12/2016) [-]
It likely won't matter if Trump annihilates Clinton in the debates because the mainstream media will only report on the parts that fit their narrative, and it's pretty clear where their bias lies, and since not everybody will watch the debates live...
User avatar
#145 - iFail (08/12/2016) [-]
Well, what I meant to say is, it's so dangerously biased that I think it sacrifices the integrity of your point - the notion that nobody supports Clinton for her politics and that the majority American voting population (approx 241 million - so over 120 million Americans) are voting for her just because they've been taken in by biased media. That not one of those Americans is a freethinker who believes in Clinton's political stance; but that all those in favour of Trump are. It's just false.
#116 - "There's no reasoning with the people who claim Hillary i…  [+] (13 replies) 08/11/2016 on Zamuelic Ystuslyiv Undextus +7
User avatar
#118 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
Provide a reason that Clinton is better than Trump.
User avatar
#119 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
That's not the point I'm making - what I'm trying to tell you is that people will support the candidate who's policies and views they identify with most.
It's not about who's "better"; we don't know who the best candidate is until after the election - because that candidate was the most successful in garnering support for the causes they stood for.
User avatar
#122 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
I really wish you were right, but people don't support Clinton because of her policies or her views. People supported Sanders for his policies and views. People support Johnson or Stein for their policies and views. But people don't support Clinton because of that. They support her because A) she's a woman, B) the media portrays her as something better, C) she's a Democrat, or D) she's not Trump. It always boils down to one or more of those four. I am yet to see somebody who supports Clinton because of her tax plans or something.

I can respect people who support Johnson or Stein, to a certain degree. Most of the people I've met that support them do so for their policies, not their platform. But with Clinton they always resort to any reasoning they can BUT her. It never fails.
User avatar
#127 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
So - you think if Hilary wins the election, that it won't be because the American people have come to the conclusion she'll be an effective political leader, moreso than Trump, but rather it's because she's a woman, and they've been wrongfully influenced by media? Correct me if I've got mixed up there - but that's a pretty low level of faith to have in your countrymen.
#167 - brainbug (08/12/2016) [-]
Average IQ is 99 in america.
#334 - anon (08/12/2016) [-]
iirc it's a fair amount higher if you ignore the black population which would bring our average IQ score up to fourth highest in the world, tied with Japan
User avatar
#128 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
You are right, my faith is incredibly low. But here, I'll do you one better: Clinton has connections to the company that runs and operates most of the electronic voting systems in the US. It is well within her realm of power to have the elections in, say, Florida or Ohio rigged. In fact it is plausible enough that outright denying the possibility just demonstrates naivete. Clinton has all the right connections in all the right places and I don't think that's a coincidence.
User avatar
#129 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
So, even if she does win - you'll doubt she did so honestly?
User avatar
#131 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
I would definitely doubt she did so honestly. Considering there is strong evidence that she had the DNC primaries rigged, it would only be the next logical step for her to attempt to rig the actual election. Some people still argue whether or not Obama rigged the 2012 elections what with the Ohio turnouts reading that he got over 100% of the votes in some counties. Clinton could very well see that similar circumstances happen.

No guarantee of it though. Sure, she may win without election fraud. But I doubt it.
User avatar
#133 - iFail (08/11/2016) [-]
Alright, just wondered - I don't really want to get into the ups-and-downs of both candidates - but how about the opinion polls? Last time I checked she was leading in most of them, but surely they're somewhat impervious to rigging?

Regardless, I think your initial comment is still pretty biased - I just wanted to point that out, but after speaking with you and hearing you really don't think Clinton will win on any other basis apart from; she's a woman; biased media favours her; and she's not Trump - I think that's somewhat ludicrous. But I can't tell you to feel any differently, you clearly have a very passionate case for Trump, and although I wish you all the best, I really think you should reconsider that statement - that 50%> of the American would do such a thing, and that 0% would have any interest in her political agenda.
User avatar
#138 - elvoz (08/11/2016) [-]
Oh, my initial comment is incredibly biased. There is nobody left on FJ for me to convince. This late in the game there is nothing I could say or do to swing anybody here one way or the other, so I'll just say what I want. The only way people will change their minds now is if something happens between now and November where Clinton or Trump does something either miraculously good or insanely bad, though I'd bank that Clinton will probably get destroyed on-stage against Trump and that could very well swing voters. But as for me there is nothing left for me to do but circlejerk, piss people off, and other general means of douchebaggery.

The thing about the recent polls is that you have to look at both the polling methods and the people running the polls. A lot of the polls performed are done with flaws. The most common one is self-reporting and opt-in surveys. This only attracts certain people and presents biases among the correspondents. The other issue, people running the polls, presents a different problem where the results could be falsely reported, the polls could be run with the intent to take samples that heavily support what the people running it support, or simply they don't know how to run polls. That being said, a lot of the polls that keep popping up are from mainstream news corporations and are opt-in surveys. This isn't quite rigging polls, but it is doing them in such a way as to give Clinton favorable numbers. It would make sense that most of the people who watch CNN and care to opt in to their surveys would be quite the Democrats and would have a strong bias towards Clinton, and this is before the possibility that the corporations themselves could intentionally tamper with the results. Remember: back in December of 2015 the various sites like ABC, CNN, MSNBC all did online reader surveys for the election and Trump won in all of them by a huge majority, prompting these sites to take down the live polling results and later put up new "results" that claimed Sanders was the winner. There has been no indication that they have stopped, because it isn't illegal for them to do this and they have no obligation to stop if they are using underhanded tactics.
#298 - anon (08/12/2016) [-]
It likely won't matter if Trump annihilates Clinton in the debates because the mainstream media will only report on the parts that fit their narrative, and it's pretty clear where their bias lies, and since not everybody will watch the debates live...
User avatar
#145 - iFail (08/12/2016) [-]
Well, what I meant to say is, it's so dangerously biased that I think it sacrifices the integrity of your point - the notion that nobody supports Clinton for her politics and that the majority American voting population (approx 241 million - so over 120 million Americans) are voting for her just because they've been taken in by biased media. That not one of those Americans is a freethinker who believes in Clinton's political stance; but that all those in favour of Trump are. It's just false.
#114 - Yeah I know that running a 3 minute mile is impossible - but I…  [+] (2 replies) 08/10/2016 on Straight Up Caught Comp. 33 0
User avatar
#115 - Greevon (08/10/2016) [-]
I don't think her answer was in response to that, those two comments aren't in the order they are meant to be read in. 4chan reposts often has stupid order such as five or six people reacting with meme arrows before you even read what they are reacting to
User avatar
#117 - iFail (08/10/2016) [-]
Aw, I'm a fucking retard - I just noticed that was the backstory, hahaha.
Gotcha now man, thanks.
#100 - I might be missing something here - but what's wrong with the …  [+] (5 replies) 08/10/2016 on Straight Up Caught Comp. 33 0
#116 - lozarus (08/10/2016) [-]
The world record for 1 mile run is 4:12.56 for women. She is claiming a time at least 1 minute faster than the olympic record.
User avatar
#110 - Greevon (08/10/2016) [-]
No human can run 20 mph for extended time. Usain Bolt caps out at 28 mph and that's during a sprint, which is meant for short bursts of incredible speed. She claims to run an entire mile at Olympic speeds.
User avatar
#114 - iFail (08/10/2016) [-]
Yeah I know that running a 3 minute mile is impossible - but I think she's making a joke.
Because the person before her says "what would you say if you were a fat fuck that knows nothing about fitness", and then she says something that she would say if she was a fat fuck that knew nothing about fitness.
User avatar
#115 - Greevon (08/10/2016) [-]
I don't think her answer was in response to that, those two comments aren't in the order they are meant to be read in. 4chan reposts often has stupid order such as five or six people reacting with meme arrows before you even read what they are reacting to
User avatar
#117 - iFail (08/10/2016) [-]
Aw, I'm a fucking retard - I just noticed that was the backstory, hahaha.
Gotcha now man, thanks.