View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 20th, 2018, 4:19 am



Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch 
Author Message
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCX7Cxwadb4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpBBGF0_UA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izhuvLGOvo

Just a few. 1 is a delegate explaining the doublespeak, 2 is a town hall showing how Australians plan is worth doing, and 3 is a recording from a private meeting.

All you really have to do is read the recent Supreme Court cases and the dessenting remarks. They want a ban, regardless of what they tell you publicly.


August 2nd, 2016, 1:28 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCX7Cxwadb4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpBBGF0_UA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izhuvLGOvo

Just a few. 1 is a delegate explaining the doublespeak, 2 is a town hall showing how Australians plan is worth doing, and 3 is a recording from a private meeting.

All you really have to do is read the recent Supreme Court cases and the dessenting remarks. They want a ban, regardless of what they tell you publicly.
Didn't watch entirely however a simple rebuttal would be
1. WTH does a delegate really know? Honestly I don't know but I wouldn't expect any of them to really know what 'the plan' is.
2. Admittedly I'm not familiar with how exactly Australia change their laws; I'll have to look into it further.
3. No where in that recording does she say she wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What she was referring to is that in the Heller decision SCOTUS for the very first time ruled that the 2nd Amendment meant an individual right to own a gun. At no time in any other ruling had SCOTUS done that. She seems to be saying that she disagrees with this ruling. Much the same as the Anti-Choice crowd say they disagree with the Roe V Wade ruling.

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 2nd, 2016, 2:51 pm
Profile
Martha Firestone Ford
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 9053
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
Image


August 3rd, 2016, 6:38 pm
Profile
Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 4216
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
BillySims wrote:
Image


19% of the vote.....and he dropped out before the election. Billy do you even read what you post? Lol

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 5th, 2016, 1:01 pm
Profile
Martha Firestone Ford
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 9053
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
regularjoe12 wrote:
BillySims wrote:
Image


19% of the vote.....and he dropped out before the election. Billy do you even read what you post? Lol


That 19% would have prevented a Bill Clinton presidency.


August 5th, 2016, 7:54 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
BillySims wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
BillySims wrote:
Image


19% of the vote.....and he dropped out before the election. Billy do you even read what you post? Lol


That 19% would have prevented a Bill Clinton presidency.
What's the matter? Afraid of some competition? I thought the Repubs were free market supporters and believe the more competition leads us to better choices.

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 8th, 2016, 10:38 am
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
TheRealWags wrote:
BillySims wrote:
That 19% would have prevented a Bill Clinton presidency.

What's the matter? Afraid of some competition? I thought the Repubs were free market supporters and believe the more competition leads us to better choices.

Billy that's true if you assume that all 19% of the vote would have gone to Bush. But the data doesn't really back that up. A lot of analysis of polling and voting data was done after the fact, and it generally showed that Perot's votes generally pulled from Clinton and Bush equally. More importantly, those votes didn't actually alter the electoral college vote very much. Obviously we can't know with 100% certainty, but based on all the data available it seems the claims about Perot handing the election to Clinton are not able to be corroborated.

Similarly, in this election if you look at the polling data, the current RealClearPolitics average polls show:

2 Way Race
Clinton: 47.5
Trump: 40.5

4 Way Race
Clinton: 43.8
Trump: 36.7
Johnson: 8.3
Stein: 3.8

So when the main other party candidates are considered, Clinton loses 3.7 points (7.8%) while Trump loses 3.8 points (9.4%). So Trump loses 1.6% more votes than Clinton when other party candidates are included. So unless it's an extremely close race (which it is not right now), the other candidates likely make very little difference.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


August 8th, 2016, 2:57 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
The problem with the polling data is back then they kept it pretty even, while now they're openly using less republicans compared to Dems and then trying to make it look like an even poll. Even Reuters was exposed last week with openly showing that they used undecided voters and decided on their own that they were just Dems that would eventually go back to Hillary, so they counted them in her column. Even the Monmouth poll today started in a 9% hole by using 35% dems, 39% independent and 26% repubs. If you start polls at an advantage, you're likely to have an advantage in the result.

Polls are supposed to be a balanced view and these aren't even hiding the fact that they're not. What's going to matter is turnout and enthusiasm to turnout and that has been and will be in Trump's favor. This isn't 2012, where large portion of the right didn't turn out. Dem turnout is down a large amount this year as it was in 2012 as well. Trump is filling arenas, while Hillary has a hard time filling HS auditoriums. The experts have been saying polling hasn't been giving accurate results since 2010 because of how people respond, but people still want to think they matter and tell the true story. They don't. When you have the black male vote vanishing from Hillary's voting block, the green party vote is definitely going to hurt Hillary more than it changes anything for Trump.


August 8th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
The problem with the polling data is back then they kept it pretty even, while now they're openly using less republicans compared to Dems and then trying to make it look like an even poll. Even Reuters was exposed last week with openly showing that they used undecided voters and decided on their own that they were just Dems that would eventually go back to Hillary, so they counted them in her column. Even the Monmouth poll today started in a 9% hole by using 35% dems, 39% independent and 26% repubs. If you start polls at an advantage, you're likely to have an advantage in the result.

Polls are supposed to be a balanced view and these aren't even hiding the fact that they're not. What's going to matter is turnout and enthusiasm to turnout and that has been and will be in Trump's favor. This isn't 2012, where large portion of the right didn't turn out. Dem turnout is down a large amount this year as it was in 2012 as well. Trump is filling arenas, while Hillary has a hard time filling HS auditoriums. The experts have been saying polling hasn't been giving accurate results since 2010 because of how people respond, but people still want to think they matter and tell the true story. They don't. When you have the black male vote vanishing from Hillary's voting block, the green party vote is definitely going to hurt Hillary more than it changes anything for Trump.

Yeah that's not how polling works. They don't just take the results and report them verbatim. That would give skewed results. What they do is take the responses, then (per Monmouth's site) weight them according to "age, gender, race and partisanship based on voter list and U.S. Census information." They want to make sure every vote has the same weight in the survey. You can't guarantee that you're always going to get a 50-50 split of respondees, so the only way to get meaningful data from that is to weight the responses accordingly. For example, if we were to do a poll of this site and a packers forum and ask who their favorite team is (with the same split of packers forum users vs lionbacker users as the dem/repub split in the monmouth poll), it would undoubtedly skew to the Packers. But if we weighted it so every vote had an equal influence on the results, it would likely be 50-50 (or very close to it). That's what polls generally try to do.

That said, I'm not claiming the Monmouth poll is accurate. It could be way off. But you're insinuating that Trump is starting out -9% and has to dig out of that hole, and it's simply not true.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


August 8th, 2016, 3:54 pm
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
FWIW:
FiveThirtyEight wrote:
The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly

We’ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the “unskewing” of polls has begun — the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.

If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct, but you can view an archived picture of it here.) The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama’s margin.

Now the unskewers are back, again insisting that pollsters are “using” more Democrats than they should, and that the percentage of Democrats and Republicans should be equal, or that there should be more Republicans. They point to surveys like the recent one from ABC News and The Washington Post, in which 33 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats compared to 27 percent as Republicans. That poll found Hillary Clinton ahead by 8 percentage points.

But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.

The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country. Some states collect party registration data, but many states do not. Moreover, party registration is not the same thing as party identification. In a state like Kentucky, for example, there are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but more voters identified as Republican in the 2014 election exit polls.

A person’s party identification can shift, and therefore the overall balance between parties does too. Democrats have typically had an advantage in self-identification — a 4 percentage point edge in 2000, a 7-point advantage in 2008 and a 6-point edge in 2012, according to exit polls — but they had no advantage in the 2004 election. Since 1952, however, almost every presidential election has featured a Democratic advantage in party identification.

Here’s the margin that Democrats have had in self-identification since 1952, according to the American National Elections Studies and, starting in 1972, exit polls.

Image

And it’s not crazy to think Democrats will have an advantage in party identification in 2016. With a controversial nominee, many Republicans might not want to identify with the GOP, and may be calling themselves independents.

You should also be skeptical of other attempts to reweight pollsters’ data. One website, LongRoom, claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton.

Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.

I’d also point out that election offices from different states collect different data. Some states don’t have party registration; other states don’t collect data on a person’s race; some states collect data on neither. There are some companies that try to fill in missing data for each state, though it costs a lot to get that data. Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?

Of course, unskewing is simply one of many ways of pretending Clinton hasn’t jumped out to a large post-convention lead against Donald Trump. You could also ask us to imagine a world without polls. You could allege, without any evidence, that outright election fraud will take place. Or you point to Trump’s rally sizes, though George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mitt Romney in 2012 all had large crowd sizes and lost.

People, though, should stick to reality. Right now, Clinton is leading in almost every single national poll. She leads in both our polls-plus and polls-only forecasts. That doesn’t mean she will win. The polls have been off before, but no one knows by how much beforehand, or in which direction they’ll miss. For all their imperfection, the polls are a far better indicator than the conspiracy theories made up to convince people that Trump is ahead.

Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight.

_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2016, 9:12 am
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
They still aren't polling cell phones, and they are intentionally leaving out the 18-34 demographic after the DNC email scandal, so that's plenty evidence that it's not a scientific poll anymore. Remember, i'm not claiming the polling is inaccurate just now, I've been saying they've been largely inaccurate since 2010, when smart phones made it feasible to cut cords. But the fact the media makes it seem like the polls represent the makeup of the country when it doesn't. Like he said, the 2012 polls misstated the margins, but also overstated the turnout. Had the evangelicals voted for a Mormon instead of staying home, that election would have had a different outcome. It's why the 20% reduction on the left and the 60% increase on the right as well as the massive number of crossovers, aren't showing in the polls.

It's not skewed because how identification is handled, it's skewed because they're using a subset of the country that is still using a phone on the wall. How many people do you know in your circle of friends still has a land line that they answer regularly without screening? It's not an accurate view of America.


August 9th, 2016, 11:20 am
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
They still aren't polling cell phones, and they are intentionally leaving out the 18-34 demographic after the DNC email scandal, so that's plenty evidence that it's not a scientific poll anymore. Remember, i'm not claiming the polling is inaccurate just now, I've been saying they've been largely inaccurate since 2010, when smart phones made it feasible to cut cords. But the fact the media makes it seem like the polls represent the makeup of the country when it doesn't. Like he said, the 2012 polls misstated the margins, but also overstated the turnout. Had the evangelicals voted for a Mormon instead of staying home, that election would have had a different outcome. It's why the 20% reduction on the left and the 60% increase on the right as well as the massive number of crossovers, aren't showing in the polls.

It's not skewed because how identification is handled, it's skewed because they're using a subset of the country that is still using a phone on the wall. How many people do you know in your circle of friends still has a land line that they answer regularly without screening? It's not an accurate view of America.

Once again the facts simply don't match what you're saying. The age breakdown of the Monmouth poll you mentioned:
25% 18-34
25% 35-49
28% 50-64
21% 65+


Similarly, for the most recent Reuters poll:
33% 18-34
27% 35-49
25% 50-65
15% 65+

NBC News:
16% 18-34
15% 35-44
21% 45-54
26% 55-64
22% 65+

Regarding the landline vs cell phone calls, here's Monmouth's methodology: "Interviews were conducted by a live caller in English, including 402 drawn from a list of registered voters (200 landline / 202 cell phone) and 401 using random digit dial (200 landline / 201 cell phone)."

NBC News most recent poll was a SurveyMonkey poll, which is done online.

Those pesky facts just don't support your narrative.

I sense goalposts being moved again in 3..2..1...

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


August 9th, 2016, 12:05 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
I'm not moving goalposts. My claim is still the inaccuracies of polling. It was inaccurate when it called Trump up by 7 also.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ngly/?_r=0 - And this was showing inaccuracy towards Repubs.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... tial-race/

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... inaccurate

As the last article points out, most won't answer on their cell, so it goes from being a random sample, to a smaller, but available sample, which takes away the randomness of it. The majority are past voters, which removes the new voter (which is a big portion of Trump's support) from the equation. But the methodology doesn't matter, it's the fact that it's been proven to fall outside their own % of error.

If you look at social media, you have an entirely different picture.

Facebook:

Trump Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views

Zero shares. And funny enough the top posters on Clinton's posts are Trump Supporters, while on Trumps posts, they are 99% Trump Supporters.

Twitter:
Trump: 10.6 million followers
Hillary: 8.1 million followers

We know Obama and Hillary have a bunch of robot accounts, while a study verified that 90% of Trump's followers are actual voters with a voting record.

Youtube Live Streams:

Trump: Averages 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averages 500 live viewers per stream

Trump has 5900% more live viewers than Clinton.

The same advantages can be seen on Instagram and Reddit. The Hillary for Prison reddit has 3x the amount of subscribers as the Hillary official reddit, so it's not even close.

The traditional polls might show the accurate look at a subset of a subset of the country, but it's not the full picture. Anyone who decides who to vote based on those is being misled. Polls don't show how many will turn out, which is the biggest factor in the election. Showing bad or good polls is targeted at that goal. This year is different and they're paying attention.


August 9th, 2016, 1:31 pm
Profile
Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 4216
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
njroar wrote:
I'm not moving goalposts. My claim is still the inaccuracies of polling. It was inaccurate when it called Trump up by 7 also.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ngly/?_r=0 - And this was showing inaccuracy towards Repubs.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... tial-race/

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... inaccurate

As the last article points out, most won't answer on their cell, so it goes from being a random sample, to a smaller, but available sample, which takes away the randomness of it. The majority are past voters, which removes the new voter (which is a big portion of Trump's support) from the equation. But the methodology doesn't matter, it's the fact that it's been proven to fall outside their own % of error.

If you look at social media, you have an entirely different picture.

Facebook:

Trump Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post — August 3rd: 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views

Zero shares. And funny enough the top posters on Clinton's posts are Trump Supporters, while on Trumps posts, they are 99% Trump Supporters.

Twitter:
Trump: 10.6 million followers
Hillary: 8.1 million followers

We know Obama and Hillary have a bunch of robot accounts, while a study verified that 90% of Trump's followers are actual voters with a voting record.

Youtube Live Streams:

Trump: Averages 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averages 500 live viewers per stream

Trump has 5900% more live viewers than Clinton.

The same advantages can be seen on Instagram and Reddit. The Hillary for Prison reddit has 3x the amount of subscribers as the Hillary official reddit, so it's not even close.

The traditional polls might show the accurate look at a subset of a subset of the country, but it's not the full picture. Anyone who decides who to vote based on those is being misled. Polls don't show how many will turn out, which is the biggest factor in the election. Showing bad or good polls is targeted at that goal. This year is different and they're paying attention.


Yeah, but the problem with all this is that Trump is a lightning rod. Plenty of people "follow" him online, just to catch him saying something stupid so they can spread it like wildfire.

Take me for example...I never click on a Hillary post. I know enough about her past to know she is scum of the earth. But Trump.....yeah I still click a few links, but not because I'm interested in him per say, but more like I'm looking at a train wreck and can't believe that he can make things worse for himself (and this country IMO) but I click it, and alas he does indeed spread even more intolerance and ignorance and I'm left baffled. My clicks, and my shares are counted above....but not for the reasons you listed above....and I am not alone.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 9th, 2016, 1:41 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3275
Post Re: Tired of Coke or Pepsi? Time to make the switch
With the new like statuses, are you clicking like or one of the others? And a positive or negative share is still spreading the information to others. No such thing as bad publicity.


August 9th, 2016, 1:52 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.