First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply W/ VOTER FRAUD, ODDS HRC WON THE PRIMARIES IS 1 IN 77,000,000,000!
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

He listed like 3 different researchers by name and 2 universities, he gave sources that weren't blogs, just google them.


I would fail even high school English courses using sources like this. I mean look at that graph...it doesn't even have an x-axis. This is a paint job by somebody with the intellect of a middle schooler.

People c'monnnnn.





You clearly missed my point, whether the logic is sound or not has nothing to do with my comment, I was just pointing out he literally put the name of the direct source in there, the only thing missing was a link.

People C'monnnn
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

Rujikin wrote:
Your questioning the source and you give me snopes. Literally anyone can post anything they want on there. No comments section for dissenting opinions just narrative.


Your benchmark for reliable sources is whether or not they have a comments section?
48407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/31/16
4003 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 10/29/16

Rujikin wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

He listed like 3 different researchers by name and 2 universities, he gave sources that weren't blogs, just google them.


I would fail even high school English courses using sources like this. I mean look at that graph...it doesn't even have an x-axis. This is a paint job by somebody with the intellect of a middle schooler.

People c'monnnnn.



Do you know what is even better? The graph is just mirrored from an x-axis on 0.5 voter share. This is about as click baity as I have seen in a while.


You don't know how these graphs work do you. Well at least your going to go google it now to try and sound like you know how they work.


Let me link you a picture of a graph I made when I had a question that I wanted to clarify: (will do it in a program later)

This is a real graph!

I even made this one!
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

Punk_Mela wrote:
You clearly missed my point, whether the logic is sound or not has nothing to do with my comment, I was just pointing out he literally put the name of the direct source in there, the only thing missing was a link.

People C'monnnn

That doesn't change the credentials of the source, at all. Following the trail leads to further discrediting--because at the end of the day it's just a blog post with misleading clickbait information. We're in the age of information, people need to be a bit more diligent.

5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:
You clearly missed my point, whether the logic is sound or not has nothing to do with my comment, I was just pointing out he literally put the name of the direct source in there, the only thing missing was a link.

People C'monnnn

That doesn't change the credentials of the source, at all. Following the trail leads to further discrediting--because at the end of the day it's just a blog post with misleading clickbait information. We're in the age of information, people need to be a bit more diligent.




Again, look up and watch my point sail on over. Never said the logic or the reasoning in the source is good. But they wanted a post that wasn't some crappy blog, and complained about a lack of sources. The people OP mentioned are the people who did the "study" and are associated with one of those universities, they are where the information came directly from... also known as... the source. Think back to the early 2000's drama "Charmed" if you are still missing my point. The people he named is the source. Their names are a valid source, because they give you the exact subject he is discussing. Whether that information is flawed or biased is for you to decide, and you can do that seeing as you have... dun dun... the source.

Seriously, I am not arguing on behalf of the "study". Originally, I was simply pointing out to the condescending poster that OP provided all the information he needed to find the content and its authors, fact check and make his own conclusion were he to simply google it. As you said, we are in the information age, people need to be a bit more diligent.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/30/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

Again, look up and watch my point sail on over. Never said the logic or the reasoning in the source is good. But they wanted a post that wasn't some crappy blog, and complained about a lack of sources. The people OP mentioned are the people who did the "study" and are associated with one of those universities, they are where the information came directly from... also known as... the source. Think back to the early 2000's drama "Charmed" if you are still missing my point. The people he named is the source. Their names are a valid source, because they give you the exact subject he is discussing. Whether that information is flawed or biased is for you to decide, and you can do that seeing as you have... dun dun... the source.

Seriously, I am not arguing on behalf of the "study". Originally, I was simply pointing out to the condescending poster that OP provided all the information he needed to find the content and its authors, fact check and make his own conclusion were he to simply google it. As you said, we are in the information age, people need to be a bit more diligent.


That's the point though, it's not even a Stanford study. If it wasn't located in a misleading clickbait blog--he never would of located it because it wouldn't be pointed at to begin with. All the data and numbers pointed out are not even referenced in that paper. The conclusions from the blog that 'refer' to the paper are also heinously outright lies (as in that is not what was concluded). The blog is a complete pack of bullshit and the 'paper' is not a study, is not research--or remotely even concludes what was referenced. It's how people get deceived. It's not a legitimate or credible source--and it doesn't lead to one. So no, there are no credible sources for the statements in this topic. Done deal.

The numbers pointed out led to--you guessed it--another blog. With more spectacular uncreditable sources.

Perhaps I'm condescending, but I'm going to be when I know someone is capable of better.


35872 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16


Snopes is only good for debunking internet urban legends. Its biased bull when it comes to political stuff.




6627 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16
Looking at that graph I immediately understood it. Basically it works like this:

the x-axis...which does exist...represents total number of votes and the y-axis is the share of the vote. As more votes are counted one would expect some consistency with the shares of votes. That is if you counted 1,000 votes you would expect a similar spread of Clinton vs Sanders votes as if you counted 10,000 votes from the same demographic area. This is the principle that polling works on and has allowed news groups to call elections even when less than 5% of the vote has been tabulated for a state.

What these guys are saying is that at some point in the polling places where there was no paper trail and had hackable voting machines this did not happen. They started equal, but then Clinton radically started gaining votes. This would be like hitting a sudden patch where every vote was for Clinton for a few thousand votes with nothing for Sanders, a statistical unlikelihood that honestly should bear some investigating.

A quick google search of Rodolfo Cortes Barragan and Beth Clarkson leads me no doubts on the credibility of these studies. Beth Clarkson in particular intrigues me as she has done prior research on voting discrepancies in the United States, a paper that was published by the American Statistical Association and the Royal Statistical Society.

Either way, I hope these papers will be properly peer-reviewed before 11/8.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

Ravenstein wrote:

Looking at that graph I immediately understood it. Basically it works like this:

the x-axis...which does exist...represents total number of votes and the y-axis is the share of the vote. As more votes are counted one would expect some consistency with the shares of votes. That is if you counted 1,000 votes you would expect a similar spread of Clinton vs Sanders votes as if you counted 10,000 votes from the same demographic area. This is the principle that polling works on and has allowed news groups to call elections even when less than 5% of the vote has been tabulated for a state.

What these guys are saying is that at some point in the polling places where there was no paper trail and had hackable voting machines this did not happen. They started equal, but then Clinton radically started gaining votes. This would be like hitting a sudden patch where every vote was for Clinton for a few thousand votes with nothing for Sanders, a statistical unlikelihood that honestly should bear some investigating.

A quick google search of Rodolfo Cortes Barragan and Beth Clarkson leads me no doubts on the credibility of these studies. Beth Clarkson in particular intrigues me as she has done prior research on voting discrepancies in the United States, a paper that was published by the American Statistical Association and the Royal Statistical Society.

Either way, I hope these papers will be properly peer-reviewed before 11/8.


Wouldn't hold your breath. The data they used to write their paper is provided by the analysis of Richard Charnin--basically a JFK conspiracy theorist. It's already wildly discredited because exit polls are not accurate in the least. Typically exit polling is more of an interview--multiple questions--and the more lengthy something is the less people fill it out. There are many adjustments made for people that don't bother on them (often relying on their race, age, demographic etc.) that they're entirely worthless for detecting voter fraud as they are now and often only used by conspiracy theorists (if it were raw it be even more heinously inaccurate). Exit polling would have to consist of nearly a single question--who did you vote for?--for it to be even reasonably near an affordable margin of error (often used in early democracies).

Basically the data they used was from a conspiracy theorist that runs a blog with a discredited analysis. Not that he's a total idiot, as he has credentials, but that doesn't change matters which is why we don't use papers and read them as a 'study' or 'research'.

RIP.

It'll float around for awhile in silly memes like a game of telephone for awhile though. Scary numbers and ball smashing conclusions make fantastic clickbait.

I do think there's mass voter fraud but this isn't even close to a reliable method.



You know how we know it's happening? When Mickey Mouse votes. A good way of measuring voter fraud? Probably won't come by it--we can barely measure number of votes currently. LOL. Florida in 2000, you all remember that one? Haha.
5037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

Ravenstein wrote:

Looking at that graph I immediately understood it. Basically it works like this:

the x-axis...which does exist...represents total number of votes and the y-axis is the share of the vote. As more votes are counted one would expect some consistency with the shares of votes. That is if you counted 1,000 votes you would expect a similar spread of Clinton vs Sanders votes as if you counted 10,000 votes from the same demographic area. This is the principle that polling works on and has allowed news groups to call elections even when less than 5% of the vote has been tabulated for a state.

What these guys are saying is that at some point in the polling places where there was no paper trail and had hackable voting machines this did not happen. They started equal, but then Clinton radically started gaining votes. This would be like hitting a sudden patch where every vote was for Clinton for a few thousand votes with nothing for Sanders, a statistical unlikelihood that honestly should bear some investigating.

A quick google search of Rodolfo Cortes Barragan and Beth Clarkson leads me no doubts on the credibility of these studies. Beth Clarkson in particular intrigues me as she has done prior research on voting discrepancies in the United States, a paper that was published by the American Statistical Association and the Royal Statistical Society.

Either way, I hope these papers will be properly peer-reviewed before 11/8.


I just have to say thank you; reading this thread before your post, I was honestly lamenting the ignorance of humanity from the replies on both sides, but your post reminded me that there are a decent amount of intelligent people in the world. So, thanks.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

kingofthelocust wrote:

I just have to say thank you; reading this thread before your post, I was honestly lamenting the ignorance of humanity from the replies on both sides, but your post reminded me that there are a decent amount of intelligent people in the world. So, thanks.




The light really glints off that armor.

5037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


kingofthelocust wrote:

I just have to say thank you; reading this thread before your post, I was honestly lamenting the ignorance of humanity from the replies on both sides, but your post reminded me that there are a decent amount of intelligent people in the world. So, thanks.




The light really glints off that armor.



To be fair, you hadn't posted your previous post when I typed that up, and it was informative as well, so thank you too.

Just, you know, Punk_Mela repeatedly saying that he never said the data was good or accurate or anything of the sort and you continually replying with "But it's not accurate!!1!!" didn't leave the best impression.

And that's not even mentioning the multiple "That's not a graph! Do you even graph?!"
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

kingofthelocust wrote:

To be fair, you hadn't posted your previous post when I typed that up, and it was informative as well, so thank you too.

Just, you know, Punk_Mela repeatedly saying that he never said the data was good or accurate or anything of the sort and you continually replying with "But it's not accurate!!1!!" didn't leave the best impression.


To be fair--I really wanted to masturbate that night and replying to him was sexually frustrating.

5037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

PrinceJudar wrote:To be fair--I really wanted to masturbate that night and replying to him was sexually frustrating.



I'm very sorry for your frustration. Please do make sure to masturbate when necessary so as to avoid such distraction of your higher thought processes.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.