Random Politics & Religion #25

That's not even how coins work.

Margin of errors are not a flat range where every value within them is equally likely. Looking individually at those +7 Ossoff polls, a -1 is not equally as likely as a +7. Assuming normality, it's about as likely as a +15, which common sense would dictate is a ridiculous outcome.

AGW can't be measured, or rather the Human contribute to Global Warming can't. At it's core there is a voodoo value known as "CO2 forcing" which is a multiplier added to the already extremely well known thermodynamics of greenhouse gas's. Anyone who attempts to question the validity of this magic multiplier or where the hell they got it from is shamed and ostracized. Without this multiplier every single "model" falls apart on the "catastrophic global meltdown" level. That magic number has become gospel and scripture.

Oh and that's even going into how the AGW theory folks violate thermodynamics by counting incoming energy twice, one when it comes into the planet and again when it's forced to "radiate". One watt of energy somehow becomes 1.1 watts ... because CO2 is evil and so is capitalistic western industry.

statistically speaking in population polling at the percentages they are using you're only ever 90% sure the results will fall within the margin of error at all.



margin of error

so if you had bet the cavs and gotten ten points in game five you would have won the bet even though the cavs sucked and lost by nine points...

the cavs probably don't feel any better about covering your spread

I would reply, but I can't tell if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or simply expanding on what I was saying.

Select your answer:

A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Expanding
D) None of the above
E) All of the above

Wrap your head around that!

yeah...um... it's called a thermometer. but you're missing the point.

Imagine for a moment you were tasked with solving the problem of global warming but the earth's temperature kept rising no matter what you or anybody else did... sooner or later somebody would notice that all of your efforts were ineffective and you would be fired.

Instead you can be in charge of draining a metaphorical swamp that has no measurable volume...

so three years from now trump can say...

we accomplished a lot of the things that we set out to do america.../shakes his head yes.... but this swamp... folks, it's deeper and larger than any of us could have ever imagined... and it's going to take longer to drain than anybody could have predicted. but I have a plan and in the next four years we're going to keep on draining the swamp until we can take back the country for the american people.

You also missed his point. There's more to global warming than recordkeeping...

In other words, playing from Obama's playbook.

Yes. But his point doesn't matter. Republicans never said we could fix global warming and in fact most don't believe it exists in the first place and even if it does exist there isn't anything we could do to stop it...

We said we are going to drain a swamp.

We are waiting for nature to fix it with another ice age. Be patient damn it !

Apparently Ray Romano is behind all this *** !

Um maybe your just being pedantic.

"Drain the Swamp" isn't a Republican slogan, it's one of Trumps slogan. Specifically it means to get rid of all the unelected bureaucrats who have been running the Government for decades. These are people who are loyal members to their party and work backdoor deals to enrich their party members with little to no thought to the American Citizens. What we are seeing right now, with all the malicious "leaks" and rabid attacks on Trump from the US government is precisely those people fighting to hold onto their power.

If elected officials are merely puppets, who are the masters pulling the strings? That is the "swamp" Trump was referencing and the biggest reason he was elected and not Hillary or one of the many Loyal Republican Candidates was his third party stance towards the swamp dwellers.

Just incase anyone thought Liberal Elites weren't super arrogant ***.

From Wapo

Hey white people, go and die so we can replace you with immigrants who will vote correctly.

How much you want to bet that the author has a "coexist" bumper sticker on his car?

It's a great slogan.

and it's way better than something concrete [intentional pun!] like "building a wall" that can be measured and therefore debated up and until the point of completion how much is getting done and how fast etc...

or "fixing healthcare" or "lowering taxes" or anything else tangible where success can be measured.

It's an imaginary swamp! How much of it has been drained or remains to be drained is entirely up to trump and anything that he does (firing comey) can be included in the "swamp draining process"


Short Answer: yes with an if...
Long answer: no with a but....

The innovators organically tackle obstacles; nevertheless the white-collar workers right-scale our acculturated, mind-blowing, business philosophy. A rapid efficiency gain goes hand-in-hand with a solid increase in margins, whilst standardizations interact with a strong execution message, paving the way for a control-based scoping.

Part of the reason hillary lost is obama had a lousy playbook...it was written by an idiot, consumed with hubris and suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Step One.
Royally screw up healthcare so bad that people will demand single payer....

Step Two.
Find some way to blame it on republicans

Step Three.
Travel the world, Eat Jiro's sushi, play some golf, profit!

and maybe I'll have michelle fix school lunches if she gets bored redecorating the white house and giving tours...

smoke a few marlboros...shoot some hoops...

Just like I'm with her is a great slogan for Hillary. It proves she is out of touch with white males.

We went over this a while back... but even trying to tackle seemingly dumb/easy ***, like fixing school lunches, can turn around and bite you square in the *** faster than you can do the dougie.

You gotta set intangible goals...like making america great again...

what dumbass donkey is going to come out on the side of "america isn't great...america sucks!"

making america great again... it's already great and we're just making it great again.. and nobody can say it isn't great without looking like a total douchebag.

and trump can say anything he wants in three years. even if the economy tanks he can say "the american spirit of patriotism has never been greater than today" or whatever... I don't right his speeches.... but like draining the swamp NOBODY CAN SAY HE DIDN'T DO IT.

did obama fix healthcare? no. no he sure didn't.

The enablers co-develop functional pockets of opportunities. As a result, the network adequately reinvests in robust socializations at the individual, team and organizational level.

It was a terrible slogan...she got her *** whipped by Cheetos Jesus.

"I'm with her" automatically begs the question "why?" and then never answers it's own question... why are you with her? and if you are in fact with her doesn't that mean she's taken and nobody else has to be with her?

The entire slogan was actually shortened from it's original form

"I'm with her simply because she is not him and we aren't them and them are all bad and they don't represent us and she doesn't represent them and after we put all the coalminers out of work the steel workers are next so prepare to drink victory gin winston smith and fall in love with big brother all over again."

That's great kid.

Now how about you go play in traffic for a little while so that I can get some work done....

Thanks.

The white-collar workers establish our unique diversification. Firm-wide trigger events energize the partners. The review cycles strengthen the policy makers. We've got to co-develop a supply-chain. The market thinker harnesses a service-oriented ecosystem, as a Tier 1 company. Correlations enable insightful, superior-quality, potential and educated breakthroughs in the marketplace.

Figure of speech. The talking point that polls were off again is incorrect. The race became too close to statistically predict. Either way, that seat previously went to the Republican in November by over 20 something percent and the final result from yesterday has the winner up by about 4%. That's a massive shift in a short amount of time.

There are numerous theories for the shift, and not all of them are cuz Drumpf is done and Dems are great.

As for the race being too close to statistically predict, well... that doesn't make any sense. The polls aren't calculating winners per se, they're calculating percentages of support. Handel won by 4, with 51.9% support. Not only was her personal support out of the range of several of the individual poll margins of error, but every single one of them undershot the final result. If the polls were "good", you would expect half of them to be on one side of the final number and half on the other. Instead, again, all of them favored the Democrat candidate, which is a strange trend that they should have accounted for by now.

Huh, there is no shift. Historically Dems have spent near 0 resources on this district and those of liberal persuasion just didn't bother voting because "their vote doesn't matter anyway". It's the same way those of conservative persuasion don't bother voting in many Californian elections. This time around the Dems decided to spent a ***ton of resources (last election was a grand total of $346 USD), lots of media attention, lots of "get out and vote cause we're gonna win" type speeches, and so all the left leaning voters who never bothered voting before decided to vote.

This election didn't prove anything we didn't know and that's you lose elections you don't spend resources on and that even spending a lot of resources won't guarantee a win.

Pretty much, yeah. It's not an apples to apples comparison when there are so many factors influencing the final result, including the massive dump of money into Ossoff's campaign.