jrd456

donate for recount

64 posts in this topic

If the state department sends election observers to foreign countries and the exit polls (the gold standard in predicting election outcome) are totally out of whack with the tally from certain black-box vote counting machines that don't have a paper trail there's no way that the election would be certified as "free and fair". Polling might be an inaccurate science but statistics isn't. A voter who doesn't want to tell exit pollsters his choice for president will simply walk by w/o giving a response. The very few that might be lying about it are already accounted for in the margin of error. Something definitely smells fishy and I support Jill Steins' efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gerard-NYNY said:

Silver, the long serving State Assembly Speaker, was a Democrat and the Garner incident happened under the watch of Socialist Progressive Liberal Democrat Mayor de Blasio, who campaigned vigorously about about police abuse of power issues and promised change in policing procedures.  I do not see a connection from these instances that point to the Republican President Elect that indicate his involvement in corruption and abuse of power.

As you probably know,you don't pour large amounts of concrete in New York without being involved with the Mob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary lost the election and will not be president.. Get over it!

Jeffery S. Wexler for president.  That's all I have to say.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jrd456 said:

As you probably know,you don't pour large amounts of concrete in New York without being involved with the Mob

I don't know about the concrete mob, but the state and the city do purchase a lot of concrete for road and sidewalk rebuilding.

morris for president.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Werner Althaus said:

...

Polling might be an inaccurate science but statistics isn't. A voter who doesn't want to tell exit pollsters his choice for president will simply walk by w/o giving a response. The very few that might be lying about it are already accounted for in the margin of error. Something definitely smells fishy and I support Jill Steins' efforts.

This is not intended as a political statement, or choosing sides, nor as any kind of a slam, but I feel the above is a statement that should not be left unchallenged and remain as yet another example of "internet truths."

Statistics is NOT an "accurate science."  Even if it were, their value requires a great deal of contextual correlation to have any applicable significance.  A statistics "expert" can make the numbers mean pretty much whatever they wish by the context and correlation accompanying them.

One of my favorite examples goes way back to the early days of public drug awareness and their rise among youth. Many well-meaning parents would quote the statistic that 85% of heroin users first used pot -- therefore, pot is a gateway drug that leads to heroin use.  What they failed to include is that 98+% of heroin users first drank mother's milk -- so, applying the same "logic," mother's milk is more endangering than pot.  

Further, the O.P, is talking about statistics gained from surveys (exit polling) which calls their validity even more into question.  To embellish the irony, look up the statistics of how many people offer false information when engaging in surveys.

Add to that the fact that 87.9% of all statistics are simply made up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Blankenship said:

This is not intended as a political statement, or choosing sides, nor as any kind of a slam, but I feel the above is a statement that should not be left unchallenged and remain as yet another example of "internet truths."

Statistics is NOT an "accurate science."  Even if it were, their value requires a great deal of contextual correlation to have any applicable significance.  A statistics "expert" can make the numbers mean pretty much whatever they wish by the context and correlation accompanying them.

One of my favorite examples goes way back to the early days of public drug awareness and their rise among youth. Many well-meaning parents would quote the statistic that 85% of heroin users first used pot -- therefore, pot is a gateway drug that leads to heroin use.  What they failed to include is that 98+% of heroin users first drank mother's milk -- so, applying the same "logic," mother's milk is more endangering than pot.  

Further, the O.P, is talking about statistics gained from surveys (exit polling) which calls their validity even more into question.  To embellish the irony, look up the statistics of how many people offer false information when engaging in surveys.

Add to that the fact that 87.9% of all statistics are simply made up.

 

Shouting the word "not" does not make your statement any more true in my view. The issue is predictive polling (the kind that many get so wrong repeatedly) vs gathering and analyzing data about an event that has already happened (exit polling). There is a reason why international election observers rely on exit polling alongside forensics and PVT (parallel vote tabulation) as indicators whether a vote was fair and free. PVT being the preferred method in countries where civil conflict is present and voters have real reasons to fear retribution for being truthful in their answers.

I'm not sure how PVTs are conducted in 100% electronic voting which is at the heart of the recount initiative, isn't it?

Both exit polling and PVT data is being statistically analyzed under guidelines and discrepancies can lead to further investigation.

Nobody's claiming that exit poll data can prove election fraud, but to state that statistics, which these processes rely on, "is NOT an accurate science" is misleading in the same way that stating "evolution is just a theory" 

My 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, please close this thread.   JWSound is a globally accessible site, and any non-US citizen donating to a US political cause is breaking laws (or causing that group to break laws by unknowingly receiving it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Healthy confrontation and getting to be able to handle confrontation is a progressive movement to something different - maybe better.  As an international community here, I think it is great for us (as Americans) to be able to communicate amongst ourselves and international participants so that all involved, especially the internationals, get a glimpse of real people's insights into the politics of the USA - who are like minded at least with respect to our trade - sound for film and television.  If your the type that likes to "unfriend" and hide behind cozy self-made barricades of good vibes, blocking this thread should do the trick.  (is that a feature that still works?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 35   Posted (edited)

The times just had an article about the loss of the saloon as a place for communities to hash out local and national politics. The internet is a poor substitute but sometimes the only community remaining. 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/the-saloon-americas-forgotten-democratic-institution.html

 

Edited by Joshua Anderson
Added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Werner,

Sorry if any of my comment came across as shouting -- I didn't mean it that way.

----------

All -- When political discussion was removed from the JWS main board the discourse became much more civil.

Now might be a good time to reenforce that policy.

When it comes to political discussion, it seems there is no shortage of people who are certain that anyone who isn't in lockstep with their views must be a misinformed idiot.

...back to talking about sound. Even if we sometimes disagree, we do it with a much more open mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol we needed The Senator to instigate, moderate and antagonize on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see the majority of this forum showing mutual respect for each other despite differences in opinion. For those who live here in the U.S., the only thing that needs to happen to make America great again is to get rid of the hate. This is a choice from within, not an action against another. United we will stand strong; divided we will surely fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Blankenship said:

Werner,

Sorry if any of my comment came across as shouting -- I didn't mean it that way.

----------

All -- When political discussion was removed from the JWS main board the discourse became much more civil.

Now might be a good time to reenforce that policy.

When it comes to political discussion, it seems there is no shortage of people who are certain that anyone who isn't in lockstep with their views must be a misinformed idiot.

...back to talking about sound. Even if we sometimes disagree, we do it with a much more open mind.

I was only referring to the practice of using capital letters to make a point, I'm sure I've done it myself more often than I'd like to admit. Anyway, no problem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ain't about donating---one thing it is about is your union. He is going after the unions and has all the power.The most power of any president for the last 88 years. It is about sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jrd456 said:

This ain't about donating---one thing it is about is your union. He is going after the unions and has all the power.The most power of any president for the last 88 years. It is about sound.

....Soooo...don't donate is what you're saying? Didn't you start this thread...that people should donate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mirror said:

....Soooo...don't donate is what you're saying? Didn't you start this thread...that people should donate? 

People need to see the strong potential of this democracy turning into a Fascist Regime. Time to wake up [not you Mirror]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jrd456 said:

People need to see the strong potential of this democracy turning into a Fascist Regime. Time to wake up [not you Mirror]

you are incorrect about the usa being a democracy.

the usa is a federal republic and a representative democracy. a democracy and a representative democracy are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great video on the different forms of government and how the USA is not a democracy and should never be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to pick up on some of the ideas put forward in the video - who creates the law? and what happens when laws are un ethical and need to be changed eg. slavery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gerard-NYNY said:

you are incorrect about the usa being a democracy.

the usa is a federal republic and a representative democracy. a democracy and a representative democracy are not the same thing.

talk about rearranging the deck furniture as the Titanic sinks....What.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, daniel said:

So to pick up on some of the ideas put forward in the video - who creates the law? and what happens when laws are un ethical and need to be changed eg. slavery?

Surely you learned this in school.  I don't feel like typing it all out in my own words so let me see if Youtube has a vid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is going to have big government. He's already going after the 1st amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, daniel said:

So to pick up on some of the ideas put forward in the video - who creates the law? and what happens when laws are un ethical and need to be changed eg. slavery?

Here's a link to a boring vid on the three branches of the U.S. government.  I haven't watched it but it probably answers your questions.

In short, Congress creates laws. The Executive branch (the President) thinks they can create law with something called Executive order which is basically the Pres. saying "I want this to happen so now it its law". That isn't really law because it wasn't passed by Congress. The executive branch really only has the power to veto a bill that Congress has passed, but Congress can override the veto if they have enough votes (2/3 I think) in the House (another name for Congress). There are many critics of Executive orders because there isn't mention of them in the Constitution.  They are an interpretation of some vague verbiage in the Constitution. But just about every President has issued Executive orders, most notably during war time.  Executive orders can be overruled by courts or nullified by legislators after the fact, but until then they carry the full weight of federal and state law (state Governors can issue them for their individual states). Probably the most famous Executive order is when Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. 

The interesting thing about Executive orders is that they can be undone just as easily as they were put into effect because they're not "real" laws passed by Congress. That is what Trump will do with a ton of Obama's Executive orders. Obama couldn't get his ideas passed in Congress so he just used Executive order. He hadn't figured that they could be just as easily undone by the next guy, ie; the Iran deal (btw, Iran is pissed, but too bad, it wasn't a real law so fuck them and Obama).

In Congress, things are different. I don't feel like typing a bunch more but suffice it to say that there has to be a bunch of deliberating and compromising to get a bill (law) passed and a law changed. All this is good because it should be hard to pass a law. This way the idiotic ones die quickly (hopefully) and the radical ones get their rough edges knocked off before they can make it all the way through the long process. An example of one that was rammed through and forgoing  the usual process is Obamacare. The bill is so terrible that it is collapsing under it's own weight. The bill was so long that no one would read it. This prompted the House Majority Leader, Nancy Peplosi, to famously say. "We have to pass it to see what's in it". What an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now