(06-19-2017 06:40 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:39 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  There are some real jewels from Mach in that thread you linked...

Here is one....post #6

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-793182-post...id13640594

That was a thread full of win.

You have to love this....

Of course, that one was scientific.

Without a doubt, even us mathematically challenged folk(as Mach called us) can see that it was obviously very scientifically based.

It's only those living along the coasts. You go east of I-5 in CA,OR,WA and the folks are like the ones in Wyoming. Great places in all of those states.

The rest of the east problem is much the same. Beyond Chicago/Cook county IL is he same also.

It must be the water.

(06-19-2017 12:15 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  Cold coup by the lawyers? https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2017/06/16/...civil-war/

"...A considerable portion of America’s permanent bureaucracy, including elements of its intelligence community, is engaged in an illegal and unconstitutional mutiny against the elected commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump. Most of the Democratic Party and a fair sampling of the Republican establishment wants to force Trump out of office, and to this end undertook an entrapment scheme to entice the president and his staff into actions which might be construed after the fact as obstruction of justice. By means yet undisclosed, the mutineers forced Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn from office and now seek to bring down the president for allegedly obstructing an investigation of Gen. Flynn that arose in the first place from the entrapment scheme.

One of the Republican Party’s most distinguished statesman recently told a closed gathering that a “cold coup” is underway against the president. I do not know and have not sought to learn the substance of the allegations; Gen. Flynn has no choice as a matter of self-preservation but to hold his peace and presently cannot defend himself in public.

By no coincidence is Gen. Flynn the central character in this scenario. As I wrote in February, the CIA really is out to get him:

Flynn’s Defense Intelligence Agency produced a now-notorious 2012 report warning that chaos in Syria’s civil war enabled the rise of a new Caliphate movement, namely ISIS. For full background, see  Brad Hoff’s July 2016 essay in Foreign Policy Journal: Flynn humiliated the bungling CIA and exposed the incompetence and deception of the Obama administration, and got fired for it. If anyone doubts the depth of CIA incompetence in Syria, I recommend an account that appeared this month in the London  Financial Times...."

Who do these people think they are?

They don't like the election outcome so they try to subvert it.

Let's just say for a minute that outside governments are trying to impact our election process. Sure, that's bad.

But an inside job is even worse.

Why hold free elections is the outcomes are undermined by the bureaucracy?

We have a serious problem on our hands. Our own government refuses to abide by the law.

Little Miss Leaker was example number one.

When actually faced with losing their pensions, the vast majority of the rank and file bureaucracy will fall in line. If they can prune the administrative tree above them, they'll do that too by turning folks in. Do not underestimate the value of self-interest even in a bureaucracy.

Even NYT writer is calling it nothing. Maybe they are scared of what will happen to the Democratic leaders when its proven nothing is there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opini...ef=opinion

"...Things are so bad that I’m going to have to give Trump the last word. On June 15 he tweeted, “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary."

(06-19-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I will. Every person not living under a rock knows about the problems with the pre-election polls.

All scientific polls provide a margin of error and we all know they are only as good as the respondents.

That being said, even the trump camps own polling pretty much mirrored the pre-election national polling.

Not to mention, the national polls (yes I know they don't decide the president) had Hillary with a lead that nearly matched here national vote margin exactly.

I remember Trump talking confidently about the errors in the polling. Then as it got closer to election day their tone changed. It seemed they began to doubt their own data.

Here's where observation "trumped" media reporting.

Wherever Trump appeared the building was packed with crowds turned away.

Wherever HilLIARy appeared a handful of people showed up. MSM framed their shots of the crowd so that it looked like the crowd was larger than actual.

One Trump event drew more people than an entire month of HilLIARy events.

The polls contradicted what was happening before our very eyes.

Anatomy of the Liberal and Neo-con efforts for unconstitutional regime change: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...s-violence

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

I take it as indicative of the fact that out of 2+million people polled 70% of them are wise to the media's bedding of the left and supportive of our POTUS.

(06-20-2017 12:37 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

I take it as indicative of the fact that out of 2+million people polled 70% of them are wise to the media's bedding of the left and supportive of our POTUS.

Given the fact that's it's on a radically liberal organization's site I find it even more compelling.

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  okay what's the point

That the same people that view and go to CNN's website don't necessarily agree with their outlandish fantasies.

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I'm thinking this poll is far more accurate than anything the left gave us prior to the election of our new POTUS given that NONE of them gave him a chance in hell. But hey, you keep on buying that snake oil they sell.

(06-19-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Or bots or trumpsters manipulated the results. That's the point!

Hence the disclaimer right on the effing photo: "This survey is not scientific"

So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I will. Every person not living under a rock knows about the problems with the pre-election polls.

All scientific polls provide a margin of error and we all know they are only as good as the respondents.

That being said, even the trump camps own polling pretty much mirrored the pre-election national polling.

Not to mention, the national polls (yes I know they don't decide the president) had Hillary with a lead that nearly matched here national vote margin exactly.

Rationalize it all away, except you can't.

(06-20-2017 12:43 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 01:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So maybe the results of this "unscientific" poll might be more accurate than all of the pre-election scientific polls were.

Yeah...you go with that.

I will. Every person not living under a rock knows about the problems with the pre-election polls.

All scientific polls provide a margin of error and we all know they are only as good as the respondents.

That being said, even the trump camps own polling pretty much mirrored the pre-election national polling.

Not to mention, the national polls (yes I know they don't decide the president) had Hillary with a lead that nearly matched here national vote margin exactly.

Rationalize it all away, except you can't.

if only Max were back on here telling us all how polls truly worked, and the significance of MUH FIELD OFFICES.

(06-20-2017 12:37 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

I take it as indicative of the fact that out of 2+million people polled 70% of them are wise to the media's bedding of the left and supportive of our POTUS.

Good lord. Dude, the people weren't polled! They clicked on a button on a website. Again, this method can allow multiple votes for the same person in addition to automated voting methods that render the results unscientific. Mainly because there is no methodology behind the sample to assure an equal representation of respondents.

I'm sorry, but If you place any confidence in this result you're a fool.

(06-20-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 12:37 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

I take it as indicative of the fact that out of 2+million people polled 70% of them are wise to the media's bedding of the left and supportive of our POTUS.

Good lord. Dude, the people weren't polled! They clicked on a button on a website. Again, this method can allow multiple votes for the same person in addition to automated voting methods that render the results unscientific. Mainly because there is no methodology behind the sample to assure an equal representation of respondents.

I'm sorry, but If you place any confidence in this result you're a fool.

We just think it's funny because: A) it's on CNN's own site and B) the result is NOT what CNN expected.

Of course it's not a scientific poll. You can only take away from it what you will.

But you do understand the jokes made at the expense of those "scientific" polling organizations that got everything wrong leading up to election night.

(06-20-2017 01:15 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 12:37 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

I take it as indicative of the fact that out of 2+million people polled 70% of them are wise to the media's bedding of the left and supportive of our POTUS.

Good lord. Dude, the people weren't polled! They clicked on a button on a website. Again, this method can allow multiple votes for the same person in addition to automated voting methods that render the results unscientific. Mainly because there is no methodology behind the sample to assure an equal representation of respondents.

I'm sorry, but If you place any confidence in this result you're a fool.

We just think it's funny because: A) it's on CNN's own site and B) the result is NOT what CNN expected.

Of course it's not a scientific poll. You can only take away from it what you will.

But you do understand the jokes made at the expense of those "scientific" polling organizations that got everything wrong leading up to election night.

Yes the polls were wrong, but they were within the margin of error. All polls are only as good as the people polled. Garbage in, garbage out.

Again, I did not originally believe the line that trump voters were just not admitting they were voting for him when polled, but I sure as hell believe it now and I was wrong. And while trump did continually claim the polls were all wrong, his internal polling basically mirrored all the external polling data.

And I'm not sure why you think CNN "expected" a certain result with this poll. They certainly didn't ask a leading question or make it a push poll.

But here's what you see with an actual scientific poll on this issue:

Quote:A poll conducted by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 61% of Americans surveyed believe the president has tried to obstruct or impede the investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election cycle.

Poll: 61% of Americans think Trump has tried to obstruct Russia investigation

Here are the actual numbers. The poll has a 4.1% +/- MOE
The June 2017 AP-NORC Center Poll

(06-20-2017 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 01:15 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 12:37 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is anyone seriously taking an online poll as indicative of anything?

I take it as indicative of the fact that out of 2+million people polled 70% of them are wise to the media's bedding of the left and supportive of our POTUS.

Good lord. Dude, the people weren't polled! They clicked on a button on a website. Again, this method can allow multiple votes for the same person in addition to automated voting methods that render the results unscientific. Mainly because there is no methodology behind the sample to assure an equal representation of respondents.

I'm sorry, but If you place any confidence in this result you're a fool.

We just think it's funny because: A) it's on CNN's own site and B) the result is NOT what CNN expected.

Of course it's not a scientific poll. You can only take away from it what you will.

But you do understand the jokes made at the expense of those "scientific" polling organizations that got everything wrong leading up to election night.

Yes the polls were wrong, but they were within the margin of error. All polls are only as good as the people polled. Garbage in, garbage out.

Again, I did not originally believe the line that trump voters were just not admitting they were voting for him when polled, but I sure as hell believe it now and I was wrong. And while trump did continually claim the polls were all wrong, his internal polling basically mirrored all the external polling data.

And I'm not sure why you think CNN "expected" a certain result with this poll. They certainly didn't ask a leading question or make it a push poll.

But here's what you see with an actual scientific poll on this issue:

Quote:A poll conducted by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 61% of Americans surveyed believe the president has tried to obstruct or impede the investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election cycle.

Poll: 61% of Americans think Trump has tried to obstruct Russia investigation

Here are the actual numbers. The poll has a 4.1% +/- MOE
The June 2017 AP-NORC Center Poll

Here's the problem with living in a society where truth and or morality are considered relative: you can no longer trust anyone.

The poll you posted looks very official. However, on the surface I place no trust in it whatsoever. I don't know the motive of the people who put it together.

I assume ill intent rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Did the pre-election polls present the results as they believed them to be? Or did the pollsters manipulate data in an effort to sway people?

Why do media organizations engage in fake news? So they can become known as liars? Or could it be they're trying to influence behavior?

In a world of moral relativism integrity has gone out the window.

As Alinskey said: The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means...

Quote:The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody.