Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDuh, so what if they were recipients of money? Besides that, your so called source can say anything he wants, like "he (shokin) was making plans to investigate" but there is no evidence of anything. Btw, your wannabe dictator has crossed the rubicon, as they say, with this one. Impeachment time!
There aren't enough votes to begin impeachment - this is more likely to scare some off. Pelosi seems to know it - although she no longer seems to be in control."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDuh, so what if they were recipients of money? Besides that, your so called source can say anything he wants, like "he (shokin) was making plans to investigate" but there is no evidence of anything. Btw, your wannabe dictator has crossed the rubicon, as they say, with this one. Impeachment time!
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAs you said the numbers are right in front of you:
The following table lists the accuracy of pollsters in the November 8, 2016 US Presidential election using the measure of polling accuracy proposed by Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy.
An accuracy measure of 0.00 indicates that the odds ratio of the survey results matches the odds ratio of the actual results (the closer to 0.00, the better).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]39846[/ATTACH]
And no, don't even go there. This is a response from a brain uninfected by partisanship.
I posted the actual numbers, and am giving up enough of my time to correct these numbers you should never have posted. You looked at the actual numbers, dismissed them for no better reason than because you didn't like them, and went looking for numbers that suited you better, abdicating any responsibility for arguing why they might be better.
Your table isn't sourced. It's clearly coming from a propaganda site, but it's not clear which propaganda site it is, not that it's difficult to reproduce the figures.
When posting the original values, from a sourced site, roujim, it occurred to me someone might instead choose to rank the polls by projected margin of victory, or even ratio of victory, but I dismissed it as so obviously dishonest no one would go there. After all, these polling figures are ranges, x ± error, yielding ranges of margins and ratios that, even for the worst of these surveys, would likely include a value exactly spot on.
So the egg's on me. I trusted too much.
Take a deep breath, clear your head, and look what you posted. The study cited is a trivial analysis. It's "What if we only paid attention to the ending ratio?" study. It makes no claims to superiority as a measure, and wouldn't, because no researcher would miss the opening for outliers to capture a "best of" prize, and especially wouldn't argue for such with rounded values subject to pigeonholing, the principle that assures us we can always find a 22/7 style ratio for pi that beats out its neighbors with similar sized denominators.
A quick calculation shows pigeonholing victories at D/R of 47/45 and 46/44 beating out Rasmussen, and further down the chart, an 18/17 would have beaten all but Rasmussen in this survey.
Someone, not you, if we're to grant you're not deliberately dishonest, went looking for a study incorporating a scaled error cancellation to remove the error in the Rasmussen poll, 3 points for each major party candidate, in order to promote it above polls with actual errors many times less than Rasmussen, as evident from the raw values posted above.
In addition, and again, the Rasmussen sample size is 500/day aggregated over 3 days, or 1500, yielding a natural 1-sigma polling error, 1/√n, of 2.6 percent, meaning any particular report's accuracy cannot, even in principle, be expected to provide a sample with sufficient accuracy to stand above the rest. This is why Rasmussen polls are aggregated over 3 days, and why 538 and similar sites aggregate multiple polls, effectively increasing the sample size to reduce polling error.
This quest, or any quest, for a "best of" poll, even an honest quest as this one is not, cannot even in principle find a more accurate projection than the polling aggregators.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostAnd again, as I mentioned upthread, those who are willing to wait will be rewarded. Both audio and transcripts of the call will be in the press soon enough, and we can move on from the if, if, if ... speculations to a more serious discussion of facts.
The rough transcript of Trump’s Ukrainian call: There are likely no tapes — but plenty of witnesses
He said when he first started in the Situation Room, he asked his predecessor why they didn’t just record the phone calls rather than going through all the trouble of this furious transcription. “The answer I got was ‘Oh God, no. They haven’t recorded those calls since the early ’70s,’” Pfeiffer recalled. After that, he said he didn’t feel the need to inquire any further.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostHe definitely has to go, he'sanother traitor in that he is covering up for the treasonous president.A Republican, and I hate RepublicansThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Well, the transcript has been released...
https://www.scribd.com/document/4274...oad&from_embed
And let's just say, "I told you so."
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostMost likely it's another nothing burger.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostIf they are recipients in this instance, they are guilty of corruption.
There aren't enough votes to begin impeachment - this is more likely to scare some off. Pelosi seems to know it - although she no longer seems to be in control.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIsn't it funny how you're willing to take the word of an anonymous "whistleblower" who has no direct knowledge, over that of a named on-the-record source?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIsn't it funny how the President of the U.S. is forcing the anonyimity of the whistelblower by denying him his protection as a whistleblower. And btw, you have no idea what the source of his knowledge is. Would you like to hear from him?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOh, I see, so if Hunter Biden and his company are working for Burisma and they are the recipients of money for their work, whatever that work might entail, then they are guilty of corruption? Is that what you're asserting? Besides that, whether Biden is guilty of anything is besides the point, the point is that Trump extorted the Ukrainian President in order to force his hand into opening an investigation into his political rival. And he did so at the risk of U.S. national security.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostSorry, but that isn't how whistleblower protection laws work. Since the whistleblower worked for the intelligence community, they are only legally protected when blowing the whistle against the intelligence community. The President is not a member of that community.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostIsn't it funny how the President of the U.S. is forcing the anonyimity of the whistelblower by denying him his protection as a whistleblower. And btw, you have no idea what the source of his knowledge is. Would you like to hear from him?
And now that the transcript of the phone call in question has been released, we can see for ourselves just how far off base this "whistleblower" really was.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
(How Donald Trump plays poker with the Democrats)
Trump: I have a royal flush. You should fold.
Democrats: No! We're going all in!
Trump: Are you sure? I just told you I have a royal flush. It's unbeatable.
Democrats: We're all in! Now let's see your cards!
Trump: (lays down a royal flush) I tried to warn you.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post(How Donald Trump plays poker with the Democrats)
Trump: I have a royal flush. You should fold.
Democrats: No! We're going all in!
Trump: Are you sure? I just told you I have a royal flush. It's unbeatable.
Democrats: We're all in! Now let's see your cards!
Trump: (lays down a royal flush) I tried to warn you.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
|
5 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 10:54 AM
|
||
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
422 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
Comment