First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply W/ VOTER FRAUD, ODDS HRC WON THE PRIMARIES IS 1 IN 77,000,000,000!
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

kingofthelocust wrote:
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.


I have to agree on that one.

28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

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


Possibly the most honest thing I have heard on GD this entire election season.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

Dark_Alma wrote:
The graph is just mirrored from an x-axis on 0.5 voter share.


I'll just say straight out that for two reasons-- 1) I'm extremely skeptical of the source and 2) It won't affect my candidate support at all even if it is true-- I won't be looking much further into the paper. But...

Shouldn't we expect it to be mirrored? For all intents and purposes, the election was basically just Sanders and Clinton. If the y-axis is voter share, then we should expect any increase for Sanders to match with a decrease for Clinton, and vice versa. Because people were choosing one or the other, a larger voter share for one would necessarily be a smaller voter share for the other, because there were, essentially, only two candidates. I would think it should be mirrored. No?
4017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

theYchromosome wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:
The graph is just mirrored from an x-axis on 0.5 voter share.


I'll just say straight out that for two reasons-- 1) I'm extremely skeptical of the source and 2) It won't affect my candidate support at all even if it is true-- I won't be looking much further into the paper. But...

Shouldn't we expect it to be mirrored? For all intents and purposes, the election was basically just Sanders and Clinton. If the y-axis is voter share, then we should expect any increase for Sanders to match with a decrease for Clinton, and vice versa. Because people were choosing one or the other, a larger voter share for one would necessarily be a smaller voter share for the other, because there were, essentially, only two candidates. I would think it should be mirrored. No?


Would make sense if it had units. It doesn't have units. They give you random numbers, but no units for it.

You are right, mirroring along the 0.5 would make sense. One's loss is another's gain. Many variables were not accounted for that should change this. From Sanders to X candidate, X candidate to Hillary, Hillary to Sanders. This would skew the mirror. Just random thoughts though.
24 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/16
omfg
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

Dark_Alma wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:
The graph is just mirrored from an x-axis on 0.5 voter share.


I'll just say straight out that for two reasons-- 1) I'm extremely skeptical of the source and 2) It won't affect my candidate support at all even if it is true-- I won't be looking much further into the paper. But...

Shouldn't we expect it to be mirrored? For all intents and purposes, the election was basically just Sanders and Clinton. If the y-axis is voter share, then we should expect any increase for Sanders to match with a decrease for Clinton, and vice versa. Because people were choosing one or the other, a larger voter share for one would necessarily be a smaller voter share for the other, because there were, essentially, only two candidates. I would think it should be mirrored. No?


Would make sense if it had units. It doesn't have units. They give you random numbers, but no units for it.

You are right, mirroring along the 0.5 would make sense. One's loss is another's gain. Many variables were not accounted for that should change this. From Sanders to X candidate, X candidate to Hillary, Hillary to Sanders. This would skew the mirror. Just random thoughts though.


Well, Rujikin linked the full graph, and it seems the y-axis is percent of the vote, and x-axis is size of the voting precinct.

Not sure why X candidate would noticeably skew the mirror though, considering all the people that qualify as "X candidate" in Missouri total up to just under a percent of the votes. I would guess that the skew would be visually negligible, particularly since voters supporting candidates that have dropped out are pretty likely to be doing so because they are staunchly dissatisfied with both BS and HRC.

Either way, it's not really too big of a deal. I guess really all I'm getting at is that I can't really see any indication that they're falsifying data or just making up graphs, which seemed like it might be what you were implying. If I had to guess, they are pulling their data from legitimate sources and honestly drawing conclusions. Whether or not they're interpreting the data in a meaningful way, or missing other corroborating data, I can't say, and like I said, I won't be looking into it. However, I would also resist the urge to to assume that they're just partisan conspiracy theorists trying however they can to make Clinton look bad. They're probably sincere. I think. Maybe.
4017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

theYchromosome wrote:

Well, Rujikin linked the full graph, and it seems the y-axis is percent of the vote, and x-axis is size of the voting precinct.

Not sure why X candidate would noticeably skew the mirror though, considering all the people that qualify as "X candidate" in Missouri total up to just under a percent of the votes. I would guess that the skew would be visually negligible, particularly since voters supporting candidates that have dropped out are pretty likely to be doing so because they are staunchly dissatisfied with both BS and HRC.

Either way, it's not really too big of a deal. I guess really all I'm getting at is that I can't really see any indication that they're falsifying data or just making up graphs, which seemed like it might be what you were implying. If I had to guess, they are pulling their data from legitimate sources and honestly drawing conclusions. Whether or not they're interpreting the data in a meaningful way, or missing other corroborating data, I can't say, and like I said, I won't be looking into it. However, I would also resist the urge to to assume that they're just partisan conspiracy theorists trying however they can to make Clinton look bad. They're probably sincere. I think. Maybe.


Good sources? Let me link the source to the source!

http://www.democracyintegrity.org/ElectoralFraud/just-doing-the-math.html

They used Wikipedia... in a "Scholarly" article. They use .com sources. These all are not creditable in the least! Let me link you to what a real article that has good data.


Apologies for it being sideways. The original image isn't like that but it is rebelling. As you can see, this is a refutable series of reference papers that was linked to another research paper on ophiolites.

This is another example. Look at the sources in the bottom. While they are from a .com (as all the ones I wanted to link are pay gated), this shows proper research.

http://www.travelinggeologist.com/2015/03/pilgrimage-to-the-semail-ophiolite-with-chris-spencer/
Posted 10/31/16

Dark_Alma wrote:

They used Wikipedia... in a "Scholarly" article. They use .com sources. These all are not creditable in the least! Let me link you to what a real article that has good data.


So it doesnt really quite look like you followed the links and are dismissing the data based on its appearance and not its contents.

Splendid job.

Anyone that didnt have their eyes glued to CNN or is otherwise some hillary bot was able to see that Sanders was defrauded of the nomination.

he would have easily beaten Trump.

But Queen Hil thinks she rightfully deserves to be president.

Such rich irony that Weiner fucked the Clintons and recorded their pederast activities. We all knew Bill was doing underage girls but it was never more than a whispered rumor that Hillary was doing it, too
4017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

RaisedInACult wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:

They used Wikipedia... in a "Scholarly" article. They use .com sources. These all are not creditable in the least! Let me link you to what a real article that has good data.


So it doesnt really quite look like you followed the links and are dismissing the data based on its appearance and not its contents.

Splendid job.

Anyone that didnt have their eyes glued to CNN or is otherwise some hillary bot was able to see that Sanders was defrauded of the nomination.

he would have easily beaten Trump.

But Queen Hil thinks she rightfully deserves to be president.

Such rich irony that Weiner fucked the Clintons and recorded their pederast activities. We all knew Bill was doing underage girls but it was never more than a whispered rumor that Hillary was doing it, too


Apparently YOU didn't follow the links. Let me link every link that the base article was linked to, as well as the ones they linked to.

http://www.democracyintegrity.org/ElectoralFraud/just-doing-the-math.html
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/
http://www.gregpalast.com/
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
http://www.bellinghampoliticsandeconomics.com/2016/04/sites-discussing-election-fraud.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyvaZ2RHEDrgKXz43gz7CbQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_elections

These are just the basic links. None of them are refutable. If you go into them, you will find the same kind of resources.

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.