Post deleted by User.
Random Politics & Religion #18
Random Politics & Religion #18
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Define "supporting". The popular vote is meaningless, so there is no way to prove your statement.
Aren't you a statistician? A 130 million sample size should be more than enough.
...
*Deep breath*
...
I'm trying to not be condescending here, so I'm just going to say this: That's not how sampling works. Not even close.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Define "supporting". The popular vote is meaningless, so there is no way to prove your statement.
Aren't you a statistician? A 130 million sample size should be more than enough.
...
*Deep breath*
...
I'm trying to not be condescending here, so I'm just going to say this: That's not how sampling works. Not even close.
FFXIAH official motto !
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I'm trying to not be condescending here, so I'm just going to say this: That's not how sampling works. Not even close.
I understand, but I don't think it's possible to get data more accurate than this for such a massive population.
A better way to determine how much of the population supports a candidate would be to take each individual county results, allocate support based by the winning %, and then crunch the numbers that way.
Or better yet, enforce mandatory voting. You can get 100% accuracy if you get 100% results.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Viciouss said: »
They are both investigating whether or not anyone from the campaign staff had contact with the Russians during the election season.
Besides, these investigations are public record. Where's your source?
No, it wasn't disproven at all. Its not facts I don't like no matter how much Trump says it it.
As I said, the Senate investigation hasn't started yet, it has just been announced.
FBI investigations aren't public record.
Doesn't anyone here even know what the word fake means ? I'm starting got think they don't !
I mean I know what fake boobs are so I just translate that to news.
Fake: An exaggeration of truth to get men to buy me expensive things...correct ?
Fake: An exaggeration of truth to get men to buy me expensive things...correct ?
fonewear said: »
I mean I know what fake boobs are so I just translate that to news.
Fake: An exaggeration of truth to get men to buy me expensive things...correct ?
Fake: An exaggeration of truth to get men to buy me expensive things...correct ?
Pretty much, Fone. Pretty much.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I'm trying to not be condescending here, so I'm just going to say this: That's not how sampling works. Not even close.
I understand, but I don't think it's possible to get data more accurate than this for such a massive population.
No. That is not correct. Since we're just talking candidate support, a well-crafted poll of 1,000 people (or even less) could give more accurate data than an election with 100+ million voters. The former can be controlled so that the results are scientific and statistically sound (although, to be fair, the pollsters have sucked lately because apparently they're idiots). The latter is a sample that with an unimaginably high number of confounding variables that completely invalidate any conclusions, especially in an election where the difference is a few percentage points.
[+]
[+]
I changed my FB profile pic to Betsy DeVos. It's been amazing today.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
I just find one thing here appalling. For months some of you guys have been insisting you hated Trump, you were only voting for him cause you thought it was the lesser of two evils, that you were so not his supporters.
So why are you all knighting it up for him? I see those same posters defending this man at any turn no matter what.
So why are you all knighting it up for him? I see those same posters defending this man at any turn no matter what.
Oh please, don't even. I've been posting in these threads for around 5 years now, and I can't count the number of times from the Left that I've heard something along the lines of, "There are plenty of things wrong with Obama, they just aren't the things you guys are mentioning."
Well guess what? There are plenty of things wrong with Trump. Unlike with Obama where many (not all) of the arguments against him had some substance, we're dealing with a media deluge of literally made-up stories about him and his cabinet picks that nobody can back up with any real evidence beyond the circumstantial kind. So instead of looking at actual policies, we're stuck defending the pompous blowhard from sensationalist, false, clickbait drivel.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
No. That is not correct. Since we're just talking candidate support, a well-crafted poll of 1,000 people (or even less) could give more accurate data than an election with 100+ million voters. The former can be controlled so that the results are scientific and statistically sound (although, to be fair, the pollsters have sucked lately because apparently they're idiots). The latter is a sample that with an unimaginably high number of confounding variables that completely invalidate any conclusions, especially in an election where the difference is a few percentage points.
Point taken, I wrongly assumed it could function as a sample. Thanks, but that's troublesome if the pollsters also suck heh.
Yeah, the problem is that polls often involve a mixture of scientific and non-scientific techniques to get their results. If the initial assumptions are off, the entire poll's results are off. It can be a complicated mess and it's harder than it looks, but my beef with pollsters recently is that they made some really dumb, simple mistakes (such as basing their weighting/oversampling off of the 2012 election results).
At any rate, any conclusions we can make about which side has a majority of support are, well, dubious at best. You would think the favorable/unfavorable polls would be a better indicator, but those are all over the place too. It's quite irritating.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
I just find one thing here appalling. For months some of you guys have been insisting you hated Trump, you were only voting for him cause you thought it was the lesser of two evils, that you were so not his supporters.
So why are you all knighting it up for him? I see those same posters defending this man at any turn no matter what.
So why are you all knighting it up for him? I see those same posters defending this man at any turn no matter what.
Oh please, don't even. I've been posting in these threads for around 5 years now, and I can't count the number of times from the Left that I've heard something along the lines of, "There are plenty of things wrong with Obama, they just aren't the things you guys are mentioning."
Well guess what? There are plenty of things wrong with Trump. Unlike with Obama where many (not all) of the arguments against him had some substance, we're dealing with a media deluge of literally made-up stories about him and his cabinet picks that nobody can back up with any real evidence beyond the circumstantial kind. So instead of looking at actual policies, we're stuck defending the pompous blowhard from sensationalist, false, clickbait drivel.
The media made the bed, now they have to lie in it. They created the opening for Trump to exploit their lack of credibility because they incited the initial public mistrust. "The Boy who Cried Wolf" is a lesson in sociology that they clearly still don't get. Why should we take them seriously now?
[+]
What made up stories are we complaining about now?
If everyone's a rapist, racist, homophobe, and xenophobe, then no one is.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Given Perry's past feelings on the DoE; it's not far fetched that a conversation about the functions of DoE occurred where misunderstandings were expressed.
Well, I'm glad we're judging these picks based on what is or what isn't far-fetched instead what's, you know, provable.
Well Perry has admitted he had a misunderstandings and McKeena (source in question) was also an advisor on Perry's 2016 president campaign.
Has Perry come out and said nope that's not true? Haven't seen it yet
Only people sayings not true are pundits and the facts I don't like decriers who have harangued Internet forums and social media sites with respect to every thing they don't want to accept or agree with.
Ugh posting from a phone :(
Obama came out before the bodies were cold in every applicable shooting and pushed for more gun control. I really don't understand how anyone can rationally say the idea that he wanted to take our guns away wasn't on full display.
It was always obvious he wanted to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns. It was never about breaking your door down and seizing your guns. Nice try tho.
All I know is that I'm pro-gun ownership.
And even I can't abide the *** NRA (the actual organization. Misguided members notwithstanding).
Fearmongers sticking their nose into matters entirely unrelated. The whole lot of them.
And even I can't abide the *** NRA (the actual organization. Misguided members notwithstanding).
Fearmongers sticking their nose into matters entirely unrelated. The whole lot of them.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Now, does it change the fact a lot more Americans voted for Clinton? No? That's what I thought. Yes, Trump won the electoral college and that's fair for America as a whole, I'm not arguing that at all.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Obama came out before the bodies were cold in every applicable shooting and pushed for more gun control. I really don't understand how anyone can rationally say the idea that he wanted to take our guns away wasn't on full display.
[+]
Viciouss said: »
It was always obvious he wanted to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns. It was never about breaking your door down and seizing your guns. Nice try tho.
That's not reality, not in the least. He wanted an assault weapons ban, and most terrifyingly he wanted to establish health care decorum where doctors had to ask about their patient's gun ownership and establish the rules for denying gun rights through some loose registry of mental illness.
Sure that's great if someone is genuinely crazy but there was nothing preventing the case of - oh you were on an antidepressant for 6 months 10 years ago, you no longer get to own a gun because you are unfit.
Besides he's commuted more gun criminals than what the past 12 presidents combined in his last days? You can't make any legitimate case that he cares about guns getting into the hands of the wrong people anymore.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
You can't make any legitimate case that he cares about guns getting into the hands of the wrong people anymore.
Operation Fast and Furious is an even better example.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
most terrifyingly
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
That's not reality, not in the least. He wanted an assault weapons ban, and most terrifyingly he wanted to establish health care decorum where doctors had to ask about their patient's gun ownership and establish the rules for denying gun rights through some loose registry of mental illness.
Is this the part where someone gives a statistic about how you're more likely to kill yourself than a criminal with your own handgun and you ignore it and say it's false?
Do you understand that those physician questions are NOT about taking guns away, but rather about monitoring people's safety and risk assessment?
If you're providing someone medications for depression or impulse control disorders, you want to be sure they're not going to off themselves.
Which given the statistics regarding gun deaths, is not really out of the question for a doctor who is tasked with trying to ensure your live as long as possible, healthy as possible.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.