Random Politics & Religion #29: Hypocrisy Edition

They are part of team blue therefor their words are unimpeachable and should be take over the words of a filthy degenerate deplorable member of that racist team red.

Bad day for libs.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/929511061954297857

"Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!"

While it is difficult to source a tweet ...

Her page on her law firm:

Roy moore still has double digit lead despite evidence-less smear by the eatablishment.

Tough day for libs.

Roy Moore is tied with Doug Jones for the last month. Next.

The three latest polls are all over the map. The aggregate has Moore at +2.

I stopped trusting polls during the 2016 election, they are always biased by either the targeted population or the over-sampling that's done to the data afterward. The parties have figured out that "polls" can create news which can be used to discourage the opponents supporters from voting or to encourage your own supporters to vote. "Why should I bother going out if my candidate is going to lose anyway" is a real thing.

I once voted in a Fox News poll, this was in the Obama vs McCain days, I forget what the poll was about but I voted against the usual Fox News pandering option and the vote didn't register while the other option was still going up.

The post was linked on 4chan and the idea was to raid it and make Fox News' poll look overrun with liberals, others were posting that their votes didn't register.

One way or another, there are serious problems with the methodologies if they're creating such huge disparities. People like to claim "margin of error!" as if they have a clue what they're talking about, but the reality is that margins of error are rendered completely invalid if the methodologies and assumptions are off (which, sadly, they often are).

It took me a lot of digging to figure out that there was something seriously wrong with several of the state forecasts prior to the 2016 presidential election. I mean yeah, I suspected it beforehand due to the strange Dem/Rep skew most of them used, but unless you're actually there when the polls get designed and executed it's a pain in the butt to actually take it from "well that doesn't sound right" to "yup, this poll is crap".

It doesn't matter if a website doctors an online poll or not. They're completely useless no matter what.

If your non-white or non-cisgendered then your votes value is tripled, if your a white male then it's quartered. That is a big flaw in and of itself. Then there is the targeting mechanism's used, these are normally just cold phone calls and the often deliberately target people from area's of a particular political slant. It's not "random", they chose a district and then randomly chose from the registered voters. By carefully choosing the district or exact list to pull from they can optimize the results to speak the message they want spoken, which is normally "our side is going to win so come vote" or "your side is going to lose anyway so don't bother voting".

One thing that I've been meaning to do but haven't yet is take the polling data and see if the polling results vs. actual results favor one side heavily over the other. It wouldn't be hard to prove bias that way.

State level polls are less accurate because they need to draw conclusions from a smaller population (vs something like a national poll). It's not a difficult concept and it's not (yet another) grand conspiracy. Online polls are something else entirely and should just be ignored.

NYT is actialy publishing racist stories against whites.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html

But how do we know whether or not you're only saying that because you've been a part of it all along.

Apparently it is a difficult concept because that's not true. Smaller populations are easier to accurately poll because the population is more homogenous and similar sample sizes represent a greater proportion.

Quoted for truth.

you wouldn't know the truth if it tail slapped you across the face in the form of a giant leaping king salmon that popped straight out of the ocean, right next to your boat, busted your chops three or four times before diving back into the water...

oklahoma....

cbsnews oklahoma

The yuppies are bashing their keurigs on twitter because they advertise on sean hannity. lol.

what ever happened to glen beck? is he still around? I need to quit playing stupid call of duty and watch me some fox news.

Glenn Beck has his on internet TV show last I heard. The four people that watch it must love it.

huh, I thought fox loved that guy, I wonder what the hang-up was.

Was crazy maybe but not crazy enough like Alex Jones.

It’s because they pulled their advertising from Hannity.

Apparently destroying your 100~200$ Keurig for Internet net fame is supposed enrage liberals.

Instead the jokes on them. Keurig still has their money.