Bernie Sanders for President
Comments
-
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.Post edited by Free on0 -
Don't you have prom coming up or something.. followed by graduation? I'm sure you have a big summer ahead. You should probably worry about that for a while.Free said:Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.
0 -
..as if the edit button doesn't exist on these posts. I could care less at this point. It was the precise point I stopped taking you even marginally seriously.Free said:
Actually I'm serious. You've been talking about that bullshit for a week now. I have no clue what you're talking about so please, find where I said that.mrussel1 said:
Ok. Bullshit all you want.Free said:
I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.mrussel1 said:
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.Free said:
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.mrussel1 said:
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.Free said:mrussel1 said:
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/WhatYouTaughtMe said:
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.mrussel1 said:
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.WhatYouTaughtMe said:
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.mrussel1 said:
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.WhatYouTaughtMe said:
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?mrussel1 said:
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.lolobugg said:i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY.
she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.0 -
Is Alex Jones a Pearl Jam fan?Free said:Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
I take it you never found that info. :lolmrussel1 said:
..as if the edit button doesn't exist on these posts. I could care less at this point. It was the precise point I stopped taking you even marginally seriously.Free said:
Actually I'm serious. You've been talking about that bullshit for a week now. I have no clue what you're talking about so please, find where I said that.mrussel1 said:
Ok. Bullshit all you want.Free said:
I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.mrussel1 said:
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.Free said:
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.mrussel1 said:
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.Free said:mrussel1 said:
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/WhatYouTaughtMe said:
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.mrussel1 said:
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.WhatYouTaughtMe said:
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.mrussel1 said:
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.WhatYouTaughtMe said:
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?mrussel1 said:
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.lolobugg said:i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY.
she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background. Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.Post edited by Free on0 -
Free - I sincerely apologize. It wasn't you that accused Hillary of murdering JFK jr. It was JC29856. My bad on this one.0
-
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Awesome post. You hit it directly. I was about to launch into 95/5/5, response distribution and MOE... and then dovetail into a Six Sigma conversation... but maybe that would be going too far.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
On a far more interesting note, how about Trump's horrible unforced error on abortion today? Think that might get some air time this fall?0 -
I studied and worked in media marketing for a while. Polling is marketing-based, more so than math-based. Taking opinions on a sample of people and determining an outcome. When you trying to predict something as big as an election with polls? It's an educated guess, not an accuracy. It's also manipulation, another word for marketing. Poll outcome *predictions* released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
Corporately owned media limits information to the public based on the bias of the corporation. The US media is now owned by six, count them, SIX corporations. The mainstream media used to be a public service. It is now owned and operated by these 6 corporations and they tell the reporters what to say. Journalists are not allowed to do independent investigative journalism anymore. They are told what to say and if they don't, they get fired. That is a fact, unless you work for independent media. They lie constantly in the mainstream media, just look at Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Like it or not, the media determines the election based on manipulation of the public especially voters who don't do their homework. And behind that manipulation is the corporations. Every candidate receives money from corporate interests, except Bernie, which explains why he is not covered well by the media. If you're going to be vote, Research the candidates on THEIR websites, and not the media websites and channels. They're more likely to be lying to you to appeal to their bias agenda.Post edited by Free on0 -
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision.Free said:
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner"
Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet.
Good point Free.0 -
Ha, yeah that might be a little too much math (or analysis) for today.mrussel1 said:
Awesome post. You hit it directly. I was about to launch into 95/5/5, response distribution and MOE... and then dovetail into a Six Sigma conversation... but maybe that would be going too far.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What??? You don't think there has to be some form of punishment for women who have abortions? Man, he really stepped in it today.mrussel1 said:
On a far more interesting note, how about Trump's horrible unforced error on abortion today? Think that might get some air time this fall?"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
After the 1980 election the media self imposed a rule to not release exit poll data until after the polls have closed. Tehy fucked that up in 2000 when they called FL before the Panhandle closed (it's an hour behind). If conducted properly, it should not have any influence since the calls are made after the polls close. The problem that manifested in AZ two week ago is two fold: 1. Maricopa was overcrowded and still in line and 2. People have smart phones which they did not in 2004.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision.Free said:
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner"
Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet.
Good point Free.
The lightning precision is not an issue of accuracy. When they are calling victories as soon as the polls close, you'll notice they are never 2 point victories. They are blowouts. Otherwise it is 'too close to call'. To think it is the media trying to influence you with their calls is ridiculous. If they wanted to do that, why wouldn't they call the election at noon? 2PM? There's no law that governs exit polls.0 -
It's quite interesting. He is able to 'speak the language' of one very specific group of voters. And he has been lauded as only offending the GOP establishment, bankers, elite, etc. But if you look, he really only has one tune and once he strays from that tune, that really important filter that prevents you from saying everything you think, malfunctions badly.jeffbr said:
Ha, yeah that might be a little too much math (or analysis) for today.mrussel1 said:
Awesome post. You hit it directly. I was about to launch into 95/5/5, response distribution and MOE... and then dovetail into a Six Sigma conversation... but maybe that would be going too far.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What??? You don't think there has to be some form of punishment for women who have abortions? Man, he really stepped in it today.mrussel1 said:
On a far more interesting note, how about Trump's horrible unforced error on abortion today? Think that might get some air time this fall?0 -
Actually, This was meant to imply "poll outcome predictions" but it works both ways.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision.Free said:
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner"
Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet.
Good point Free.
And when I say it works both ways, I mean that it manipulates viewers (voters) in its own subtle and not so subtle ways, to vote one way or another. And yeah, they've been known to skew results. It's all about the bias!Post edited by Free on0 -
They want to give time to the women lying in pain on a hospital bed to get out and vote against Trump. (If that's how the particular network swings)mrussel1 said:
After the 1980 election the media self imposed a rule to not release exit poll data until after the polls have closed. Tehy fucked that up in 2000 when they called FL before the Panhandle closed (it's an hour behind). If conducted properly, it should not have any influence since the calls are made after the polls close. The problem that manifested in AZ two week ago is two fold: 1. Maricopa was overcrowded and still in line and 2. People have smart phones which they did not in 2004.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision.Free said:
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner"
Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet.
Good point Free.
The lightning precision is not an issue of accuracy. When they are calling victories as soon as the polls close, you'll notice they are never 2 point victories. They are blowouts. Otherwise it is 'too close to call'. To think it is the media trying to influence you with their calls is ridiculous. If they wanted to do that, why wouldn't they call the election at noon? 2PM? There's no law that governs exit polls.
or
If perhaps they want green grass and birds landing everywhere they will say that sanders is winning.
or
They just won't call anything because nobody really knows anything.
0 -
Also, instead of editing.
Up here we lifted the blackout a few years ago.
The west, or rest of Canada could not report the east results.
Our country had to wait until all polls were closed.
0 -
This sounds suspiciously like sarcasm.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
They want to give time to the women lying in pain on a hospital bed to get out and vote against Trump. (If that's how the particular network swings)mrussel1 said:
After the 1980 election the media self imposed a rule to not release exit poll data until after the polls have closed. Tehy fucked that up in 2000 when they called FL before the Panhandle closed (it's an hour behind). If conducted properly, it should not have any influence since the calls are made after the polls close. The problem that manifested in AZ two week ago is two fold: 1. Maricopa was overcrowded and still in line and 2. People have smart phones which they did not in 2004.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision.Free said:
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.jeffbr said:
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner"
Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet.
Good point Free.
The lightning precision is not an issue of accuracy. When they are calling victories as soon as the polls close, you'll notice they are never 2 point victories. They are blowouts. Otherwise it is 'too close to call'. To think it is the media trying to influence you with their calls is ridiculous. If they wanted to do that, why wouldn't they call the election at noon? 2PM? There's no law that governs exit polls.
or
If perhaps they want green grass and birds landing everywhere they will say that sanders is winning.
or
They just won't call anything because nobody really knows anything.0 -
^^^
I get that a lot.
Your take I guess.0 -
Free said:
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
I dabble in life a little and realize that some people can tell you the square root of a pickle jar but can't open it.rgambs said:Free said:I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help