Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,577 Responses
- renderedred0
tulsi!
- She nailed that Afghanistan issue.CyBrainX
- out of everybody she sounded the best, logical, pragmatic....renderedred
- ok_not_ok3
- some will say it's a "w" ;)renderedred
- Is this the next sign to trigger all the naziphobes ?Gnash
- It's a Hindu mudra you guyssarahfailin
- renderedred2
As a Middle Easterner I am dying to hear this plan Kushner has. It's going to be a riot :)
- ********-3
so ukit,
to what we discussed and your questions. I do not think there is any bias in the poll. the poll is a pretty standard measure over and above as you point out on polling figure. However its scary when people think they can have a bead on society through poll with about 16 popular metrics. Chasing lowest common denominators and only measuring the basics make you miss out on the larger spectrum of society. But the big hope for central planners in making "correct" decisions...
As far as bias in the graph... without a doubt its biased.... i could't see the article due to paywall... maybe there was more than I have seen... but the single graph you posted was directly related to showing a rep/dem bias on war. Which is a single metric point. And all the other metrics in the poll being ignored in the graph dictate that was the end game point. If it wasn't why not share all the data and let people decide what they take away. Why go through effort and labor to create a graph? Which designer also got wrong graphing a dataset not in the data. Which also calls into question interpretation issues. Which is similar to the 5am algo buy on trade talks cnbc did this morning. Sometimes when framing info we fuck up graphicly and can completely distort message and perceived reality.
In conclusion my little point calling out the strange "us adult" stat in the graphic (which i was right on as an error) was the main point. The rest is just commentary on the nature of polling being the soft science and highly biased commodity it is. You can agree or disagree and error of margin is anyones guess daily. I think you have mentioned the bias yourself, but not sure you see the big market for it. Not sure you even care. But hey no hard feelings. I wish I could explain better the dangers of chasing LCD poll data and holding certain measures up out of context for a sell
- For the record I wasn't claiming this or any other poll is perfect...but I think your criticisms in this case are based on pretty much nothing.yuekit
- The reason it says "US adults" is because they aren't going to poll a 5 year old on a question about war. So they have to draw the line somewhere, probably atyuekit
- 18 and older. Pretty standard stuff. Not sure why you see that as suspicious.yuekit
- It's also not unusual at all to have a poll that asks a number of questions and then highlight one of them in a graph or article.yuekit
- Doesn't indicate bias, just interest in a particular topic or question.yuekit
- Anyway this is way more discussion than a single poll question deserved, but if those are the only issues, I'd say maybe the poll is not so bad :)yuekit
- the us adult is a percentage of the polled related to the question. but the whole poll is 100% us adults (18+) there is no need to graph it.********
- Which begs the question where the arbitrary data came from. Considering I didn't see poll geography info was i wonder if it was outside US.********
- They piggybacked on that other data source I said I didn't look at. If that is the case and sample was outside US than those political terms do not matter.********
- Unless a GD fucked it up and assign values to the graphs that where attributed to something else. doesn't add up.********
- and yes its not unusual for polling to collect a variety of info. The variety makes it more valuable to sell/use to shape for bias.********
- Choosing one dataset vs others is bias. Like choosing ingredients in a meal you do it with an endgame in mind. Great to have stocked kitchen********
- But without a doubt each meal derived from the ingredients is purposefully designed. Why its not common for so many people to ignore "polls". they get it********
- still surprised this deep in asking same question but my fault for my extra commentary of the obvious********
- So your problem with it is that infographics in general are biased -- got it lol.yuekit
- Well yes but that was the secondary point. My primary objection is that us adult data being graphed. Where it came from and why? Really that bugs me more than********
- anything. Still thinking a young designer, but where would he have pulled the data to graph the percentage?********
- It says they surveyed 1,500 US adults. It is really not complicated, in spite of you trying to make it that way. I think you have too much time on your hands.yuekit
- OMG dude! than why graph 47, 31, 22% when clearly the study is 1500 adults = 100%. And no need to graph. Now here did the designer pull those numbers from?********
- Not sure how to make myself any more clear... Have you just been misunderstanding me this whole time? Maybe still...?********
- haha no idea if you are trolling or not but I can’t waste time on this anymore sorryyuekit
- There were 1500 US adults polled. Out of that 47% answered yes. 31% of those adults who are Democrats answered yes. Etc...yuekit
- It’s super easy to understand and no offense but in 100+ notes you haven’t been able to raise a single legitimate point. Time to call it a day dude...yuekit
- im not trolling. the percentage of adults is its own stat. of 1500 (all which are adults) the breakdown is dem/ind/rep = 31/40/77 (100% may not add up due to********
- rounding... 31-40-77 = 148% not a 1-2% for rounding. Plus the added US adult comparison. If 47 us adults strongly supported who was the 53% non us adults?********
- the graph you linked is all kinds of fucked up. you have to be trollin at this point********
- 31% of Democrats answered yes. Not 31% of all the respondents. Let's say a third of the people polled were Democrats, 31% of that third answered yes.yuekit
- HA why would some one do it that way? Now we don't even have a figure of dems vs reps etc polled by the graph. Basically if 80% polled were reps.********
- Did you seriously think the pollster made a mistake where the numbers added up to 148%?yuekit
- and still doesnt explain my pet peeve. why graph us adults if all are adults? can you explain that one? are their kids or non us adults? how do you get that********
- US adults just means "everyone." There's no mistake or trick going on there, it's just showing the overall percentage that answered yes, no or don't know. Andyuekit
- then the percentage that answered this for each subgroup.yuekit
- The breakdown of respondents in terms of Dems, Repubs and independents is listed in the detailed poll results I linked earlier (it's about a third for each).yuekit
- Ooh I think I get it. you're sayign they are creatign a new data set outside poll info of the graph to display SUPPORT, OPPOSE, NOT SURE of sample********
- but that is bad very bad design. first theyre combining percentages which distorts percentages. than graphing a percentage next to it which has % is not connect********
- ed at all.... its jsut a very bad infographic********
- I dunno if it's fair to blame the pollster or designer just because YOU personally couldn't understand it. I think the average person would not have an issueyuekit
- Would have left off whole as % and just graphed the 5 data sets by party ID. Less confusing and better understanding of data********
- with it, considering I've seen many polls presented the exact same way. Bottom line, there was no mistake or bias here. You were just wrong.yuekit
- perhaps. i did mistake it. as far as data go I'd now be curious of actual number of said variable vs percentages.********
- and no mistake. i see how it was done and can speculate reasons why. but any reason is bias. wether a person cares about info display vs or 3 fits better than 5********
- and is less work. but i will say an honest thank you for sticking with me on it to see it through. i would never do data this way, so my own bias blinded me********
- does beg the question in how such basic communication took so long though. and could be an example of problems of larger communication********
- why did my question take so long. Did i sideline it out of just basic trash talk? Did I hope my lazyiness in understanding data would result in someone giving m********
- me answers based on basics i saw that didnt add up. curious why it took you so long ukit to identify primary goal? Help explain it?********
- were we talking at and not with. What changed?********
- lowimpakt3
what the actual fuck is up with Alabama?
"Alabama woman loses unborn child after being shot, gets arrested; shooter goes free"
this is what you get when you have fundamentalist men and religious extremists in charge of policy
- Sounds more like the Islamic State or Boko Haram. Sweet home indeed.Morning_star
- if a pregnant woman instigates a confrontation with an armed individual, her actions are reckless endangerment of the child. how hard is this to understand?imbecile
- Well, quite hard apparently. Especially for angry pregnant mothers.Morning_star
- Imbecile is right. If you have the right to shoot somebody in self defense then there's no problem in the shooter going free.deadsperm
- She's getting arrested for putting her child in danger by instigating a fight where it's legal for somebody to shoot you in self defense.
Case solved.deadsperm - Absolutely, Imbecile is right. I think the criticism here is about the systems and laws that support this outcome.Morning_star
- That argument only works if you consider an unarmed pregnant woman lethal enough to shoot with a gun.monospaced
- It's all about living your truth. If you feel your life is in danger you can shoot to kill.deadsperm
- Funny how only someone with a gun would consider their life in danger enough to shoot to kill.formed
- You people are fucked up.lowimpakt
- You people?
https://www.youtube.…deadsperm - "truth" was probably determined by a lawyermonospaced
- No, a judge.deadsperm
- Guy was hoping for a two for one.PhanLo
- A judge ruled on it, sure, but truths like you are talking about are often generated by lawyers to make a case. This I thought was obviousmonospaced
- In any case. It looks like we’ve found a loophole for legal abortions in Alabama! Just have your doctor claim self defense as he kills the fetus. Win win.monospaced
- Now you're talking!deadsperm
- sted13
- Nairn0
I just got profoundly confused reading a headline.
Apparently the DUP in Nornireland has another Ian Paisley at the helm.
The idea of a zombie version of Ian Paisley I is too much to imagine.
- sted0
- Robot malfunction?PhanLo
- it's happened again today.fadein11
- I feel so bad for her. Must suckGnash
- Hypoglycemia?Krassy
- Parkinson?nbq
- Lol her tremors are because she's tipping almost 200 lbs... I've always been amused that she presents herself as a chubby Aryan mushroom!?!robotron3k
- Parkinson's is no jokeshapesalad
- robo...you really are a turd of a person.BusterBoy
- horrible.teh
- never joked about his supreme leaders weight.inteliboy
- I wasn't joking.nbq
- í´am pretty sure trump finds this amusing too, coz he sure likes mocking disabled people...neverscared
- i guess shaky leg syndrome, only her feet are the source of shaking...neverscared
- robotrollutopian
- Ramanisky22
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www…
The US Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that federal courts do not have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims. The decision could reshape the balance of power in Congress and state legislatures.
So basically let the cheating commence and fuck voting rights.
- The decision was that congress should make laws if they want to regulate it, it's not the courts' job. So in essence, you must win the next election.zarkonite
- Congress makes the laws, not the SCGnash
- Since they only can do like 12 cases a year, makes sense.robotron3k
- Right down party lines. Put there for a purpose and fulfilling their payback. Anything to keep the GOP in power.formed
- I can sort of see their argument. It runs the risk of the Supreme Court deciding things for a state. However the practical impact of this decision will likelyyuekit
- be to encourage parties to bend the rules as much as humanly possible in redrawing districts so they stay in power forever.yuekit
- Are you guys under the impression only Republicans do it? Srsly, the supreme court case was also about D partisan gerrymandering. It needs to be dealt with onzarkonite
- both sides or else it's just going to get worse.zarkonite
- ********-2
- His new beard makes him look like Wolverine, he's upped his shagger game. Still and Eddie Munster lookalike underneath.PhanLo
- Agree, Prez. Wolverine!robotron3k
- whatthefunk1
- wow — how quickly the left eats it's own... Dude was VP for 8 years to the first black preezy in the US and this is how he gets treated... lolPonyBoy
- savage :)renderedred
- The whole thing seemed a bit fake/staged..
https://twitter.com/…yuekit - It’s marketing. She was going to use that line regardless of any question asked. They all had their canned ‘stories’ preppedGnash
- He should have been more ready.Gnash
- bernie's where it's at.colin_s
- yuekit... you think Biden put himself out there to get beat up just to help Kamala? (I can't see any other reason why this would be staged)PonyBoy
- Unless the mediators are in on it too... to set Biden up for a Kamala take down... but if that's the case one should be disgusted by the whole thing I'd think.PonyBoy
- I just meant it seemed like a very canned line that she has rehearsed hundreds of times before... and they even started selling T shirts afterwards lol.yuekit
- Seems weird to me how these debates are now covered like professional sports in the U.S. As if rattling off a good one liner qualifies you to run a country.yuekit
- ^ 100%. They had merch ready immediatelyGnash
- inteliboy2
Been noticing a massive amount of pro-trump pro-russia comments on youtube from brand new accounts with no other activity, no subscriptions, no comments. The troll farms are in full effect now that the US election season is kicking into gear.
You do wonder why the left doesn't fight back just as dirty. They're going to lose again. Also wonder why there's been nothing done to stop it. QBN sorted this spam shit out with a budget of what, zero dollars and some dudes spare saturday afternoon.
- sure, it's in gear now and the left is trying to fight it by exposing it and that's a mistake. i am not saying they should do the same but they are losingrenderedred
- many have been spotted and screen-capped on Twitter ... all with the same copy & paste tweet and with zero followersRamanisky2
- The debates showed all the Dummocrat candidates believe in the same thing, give free away stuff for votes. It's not going to be a hard choice in Nov 2020robotron3k
- Of course not. You'd vote for a rapist bought into power by Russia regardless. Give the "free" bs a rest, it's exhausting. No one thinks anything is free,formed
- beyond the trolls that keep regurgitating it...over and over and over again.formed
- @inteliboy - it's all money, unfortunately. Regurgitating bs gets people angry and that gets clicks and comments.formed
- Why do trumptards keep thinking someone is offering free shit? So stupid.monospaced
- Robotard still copy and paste some shit here...Salarrue
- Ramanisky25
the GOP loves and cares for the less fortunate
- whatthefunk0
You can just see in Christine Lagarde's (Managing Director and Chairwoman of the IMF beside Theresa May) face that she's wondering who this person is and why she's trying to talk to them.
- she doesn't even look at her until the very end glance over.renderedred
- european cuntiness at its bestrenderedred
- American entitlement as alwaysscruffics
- spot the blonde bimbo.neverscared
- Wait, this big deal, someone is listening to May spew knowledge...robotron3k
- ^ How shocking is it that the Trumper on this board types like an advanced caveman?garbage
- For real, your idiocy forced me to log in for the first time in months.garbage
- #unwantedivanka
https://twitter.com/…Bluejam - All the hand waving, like her dad, in a failed attempt to grab attention. Not even a shoulder turned to let her into the circle. Pathetic like her dumb shit dadmonospaced
- yuekit0
All this controversy over Huawei and whether they will be banned or not makes me wonder....is there any actual evidence that they have been spying for China?
Wouldn't be hugely surprisingly if true, but according to this so far the evidence is rather weak:
https://www.techrepublic.com/art…
On the other hand we know from the Snowden leaks among others that the U.S. government uses American tech companies for exactly this purpose. Going so far as to collect data about millions of average users even in friendly countries like in Europe.
So the U.S. is going to ban Huawei and declare a national security emergency...for allegedly doing exactly what the U.S. itself does? Is it actually about spying more about competition over who can dominate 5G?
You would think this would be a logical thing for the press to point out when covering the Huawei story, but so far I haven't seen it mentioned a single time.
- The press declare Russian election interference a national emergency, as well. They also never point out that the USA does the same thingGnash
- I think it was Canada that sounded the alarm on Huawairobotron3k
- There is evidence. They stole a robotic fingertip used for testing screens.sarahfailin
