Drink f*** fight wrote:
^drunkard posting a nothing burger
Drink f*** fight wrote:
^drunkard posting a nothing burger
Man I think you are great. You are a minority neo-nazis. Tell the true, how many guns do you have? Come on DFF don't be shy. Do you repeat how no one could ever take your guns away? They said that all the time.I should have taped the neo-nazis conversations for you so you can hear what they say about liberals. You would love it!So how many guns? Don't be afraid to say!
Drink f*** fight wrote:
I knew you were a Lilly white boy😂😂😂😂. That was enough to set you off😆
You libbbtwats are so fckn transparent😆😂😆😂😆
Lilly white hands softer than a baby's a$$ because you have never worked a day in your pathetic lives😆
First, in general, a statistician is not a scientist.Second, I've never heard either claim to be infallible.I supported Silver because I found his methodology to be more convincing than any other I've seen. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silver did far better than all the rest of the aggregators. Silver was not "way off". He was probably spot on. Trump probably did have about a 30% chance of winning.
itsbaddude wrote:
Lets look at some interesting information, specifically concerning people that have great credentials and think they are better than everyone else. I bring this up to caution people that think "scientists" are infallible. I especially want to bring attention to people that think you should trust "scientists" 100% because they are "experts."
Prof. Sam Wang has academic expertise in biophysics and neuroscience. In these fields he uses probability and statistics to analyze complex experimental data, and has published over eighty papers using these approaches.
Seriously, this guy's research should called into question.
There’s been buzz about the Princeton Election Consortium’s win probability for Clinton, which for some time has been in the 98-99% range. Tonight let me walk everyone through how we arrive at this level of confidence: With a more conservative assumption (see discussion) the PEC approach gives a probability of more like 95%. I will also give a caveat on how it is difficult to estimate win probabilities above 90% – and why fine adjustments at this level might not matter for my goals in running this site.
Here he is bashing Nate Silver (who only has a bachelor's degree in economics), who was still way off!
An obvious contrast with PEC’s calculation is the FiveThirtyEight win probability, which has been in the 60-70% range. As a prominent outlier this season, FiveThirtyEight has come under fire for their lack of certainty.
Fat hurts wrote:
I saved you the trouble. Here is what I said on election day:
Clearly, I was not super confident.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6751396&page=685
Fat hurts wrote:
I supported Silver because I found his methodology to be more convincing than any other I've seen. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silver did far better than all the rest of the aggregators.
This... the info was there, but people didn't want to believe it. The panel on NPR was frequently discussing whether Trump should drop out when 538's winning percentage would drop to 'only' 20%. In the days before the election the creator of the Huffington Post model (giving Trump a 2% chance) even attacked Nate Silver.
Generals and Majors wrote:
Generals and Majors by XTC
Generals and Majors ah ah
they're never too far
from battlefields so glorious
out in a world of their own
They'll never come down
till once again victorious
Generals and Majors always
seem so unhappy 'less they got a war
Generals and Majors ah ah
like never before are tired of being actionless.
Calling
Generals and Majors everywhere
Calling
your World War III is drawing near
Generals and Majors ah ah
They're never too far
away from men who made the grade
out in a world of their own
They'll never come down
until the battle's lost or made
Generals and Majors ah ah
like never before, are tired of being in the shade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZuMB2e4pfs
Sir Richard Branson is in the beginning of that video.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
For the record, Eric Blair using his former handle agip, criticized Flagpole.
For the record, you've just proven yourself the Queen of Dumbfvckery (Flagpole is the King).
Now, DO try to keep up.
Tell us how soft your Lilly white girl hands are white boy😆😆😆
I had you pegged from the get go😂â—ï¸
I know you live on mommies basement. I bet an honest days work scares the $hit out of you😆
Libbbtwats🤦â€â™‚ï¸
DFF is too scared to answer my question.How big is your arsenal?How many times have you repeated no one will take away your guns?How often do you say how tough you are, do you you make fun of people, and say how weak liberal are? That's is just what the neo-nazis do.You are a minority neo-nazis!! That is so funny.So if you are a minority, than what groups do you hate? neo-nazis always hate groups?I have been to their meetings and you are JUST LIKE the radical ones.(The only difference is that they seem a little braver)
Drink f*** fight wrote:
Tell us how soft your Lilly white girl hands are white boy😆😆😆
I had you pegged from the get go😂â—ï¸
I know you live on mommies basement. I bet an honest days work scares the $hit out of you😆
Libbbtwats🤦â€â™‚ï¸
Do not conflate tolerance for intolerance with tolerance for the intolerant to freely express their ideas on intolerance. Democracy depends on the second part.Make sense?
Tolerance of Intolerance? No! wrote:
https://i.redd.it/i69jnt27a8gz.png
Itsbaddude expresses the papertiger fallacy. He starts to argue that no one should trust scientists 100%.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a scientist has never been wrong. But in some areas they are 100% right or pretty darn close.
Wow man you are so smart. Here I am giving you real life example, you refute it and then prove my point. LOL
Conundrum wrote:
Itsbaddude expresses the papertiger fallacy. He starts to argue that no one should trust scientists 100%.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a scientist has never been wrong. But in some areas they are 100% right or pretty darn close.
I'm going to burst your bubble again. Nate Silver used his model and predicted Hillary would get 302 electoral votes. So instead of quoting nonsense, like Trump probably had a 28.6% chance of winning, use the actual meaning of the number. So yes, he was way off.Nate Silver's methodology is not fully public. I have not idea what you mean you studied his methodology. You'd be better off claiming he predicted Obama's victory and that is why you like him.Sam Wang is a scientist, not a political scientist, a real scientist.
Fat hurts wrote:
First, in general, a statistician is not a scientist.
Second, I've never heard either claim to be infallible.
I supported Silver because I found his methodology to be more convincing than any other I've seen. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silver did far better than all the rest of the aggregators.
Silver was not "way off". He was probably spot on. Trump probably did have about a 30% chance of winning.
itsbaddude wrote:Lets look at some interesting information, specifically concerning people that have great credentials and think they are better than everyone else. I bring this up to caution people that think "scientists" are infallible. I especially want to bring attention to people that think you should trust "scientists" 100% because they are "experts."
Prof. Sam Wang has academic expertise in biophysics and neuroscience. In these fields he uses probability and statistics to analyze complex experimental data, and has published over eighty papers using these approaches.
Seriously, this guy's research should called into question.
Here he is bashing Nate Silver (who only has a bachelor's degree in economics), who was still way off!
It depends on what you mean. Sure in a free democratic society people can "freely" express their intolerant point of view. But, there are and should be consequences for that expression from society at large. I am not advocating the government hand out consequences for such behavior but if intolerant people lose their job / are alienated from society at large I think that's appropriate. Violence is not okay but civil resistance to such views including unpleasant consequences is the bedrock of a modern western society.Intolerant people are not victims. They are not oppressed. They hold views that antithetical to modern western society. Examples of intolerant groups that should be called out and resisted includes the KKK, now-Nazis, white nationalists, AND all extreme religious groups (yes, I do mean Muslims in addition to Christian and Jewish extremists).
Conundrum wrote:
Do not conflate tolerance for intolerance with tolerance for the intolerant to freely express their ideas on intolerance. Democracy depends on the second part.
Make sense?
Tolerance of Intolerance? No! wrote:https://i.redd.it/i69jnt27a8gz.png
Did Trump just turn Arizona blue?
His mouth is really out of control.
This is what happens in communists countries such as Cuba. Yes, you can speak freely, but you may wind up a political prisoner.What you are really advocating is that people conform to your views or else. You throw buzz words like Nazi, KKK, etc to make your point. Very few people are Nazis or belong to the KKK. You might as well throw in the devil. Who can be for the devil?How about arguing with real arguments like: why people want illegals deported, why people want to restrict immigration from stateless Muslim countries, why people want to build a wall, why people don't want statues torn down.How would you feel if you were jailed, fired from your job and blacklisted because of your beliefs?Typical communist.
Well, we, um....well wrote:
It depends on what you mean. Sure in a free democratic society people can "freely" express their intolerant point of view. But, there are and should be consequences for that expression from society at large. I am not advocating the government hand out consequences for such behavior but if intolerant people lose their job / are alienated from society at large I think that's appropriate. Violence is not okay but civil resistance to such views including unpleasant consequences is the bedrock of a modern western society.
Intolerant people are not victims. They are not oppressed. They hold views that antithetical to modern western society. Examples of intolerant groups that should be called out and resisted includes the KKK, now-Nazis, white nationalists, AND all extreme religious groups (yes, I do mean Muslims in addition to Christian and Jewish extremists).
Conundrum wrote:Do not conflate tolerance for intolerance with tolerance for the intolerant to freely express their ideas on intolerance. Democracy depends on the second part.
Make sense?
itsbaddude wrote:
This is what happens in communists countries such as Cuba. Yes, you can speak freely, but you may wind up a political prisoner.
What you are really advocating is that people conform to your views or else. You throw buzz words like Nazi, KKK, etc to make your point. Very few people are Nazis or belong to the KKK. You might as well throw in the devil. Who can be for the devil?
How about arguing with real arguments like: why people want illegals deported, why people want to restrict immigration from stateless Muslim countries, why people want to build a wall, why people don't want statues torn down.
How would you feel if you were jailed, fired from your job and blacklisted because of your beliefs?
Typical communist.
I'm pretty sure that saying "I am not advocating the government hand out consequences for such behavior" indicates that this poster does not support jailing people for their beliefs...
Well, we, um....well wrote:
It depends on what you mean. Sure in a free democratic society people can "freely" express their intolerant point of view. But, there are and should be consequences for that expression from society at large. I am not advocating the government hand out consequences for such behavior but if intolerant people lose their job / are alienated from society at large I think that's appropriate. Violence is not okay but civil resistance to such views including unpleasant consequences is the bedrock of a modern western society.
You clearly don't understand probability and statistics. Take a class. It will open your eyes.After that, you can examine Silver's methodology here. This is public though I don't think he has released the source code:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
itsbaddude wrote:
I'm going to burst your bubble again.
Nate Silver used his model and predicted Hillary would get 302 electoral votes. So instead of quoting nonsense, like Trump probably had a 28.6% chance of winning, use the actual meaning of the number. So yes, he was way off.
Nate Silver's methodology is not fully public. I have not idea what you mean you studied his methodology. You'd be better off claiming he predicted Obama's victory and that is why you like him.
Sam Wang is a scientist, not a political scientist, a real scientist.
Fat hurts wrote:First, in general, a statistician is not a scientist.
Second, I've never heard either claim to be infallible.
I supported Silver because I found his methodology to be more convincing than any other I've seen. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silver did far better than all the rest of the aggregators.
Silver was not "way off". He was probably spot on. Trump probably did have about a 30% chance of winning.
itsbaddude wrote:
This is what happens in communists countries such as Cuba. Yes, you can speak freely, but you may wind up a political prisoner.
It's not the comunisim.
The issue is when the country is authoritarian or a straight dictatorship.
You can't have one person in power for 50 years.
North Korea also is an authoritarian government
Oh yea, I forgot. The leftist here, *** that read dictionary definitions ***, believe that communism has never been practiced correctly, and if it was, it would be utopia.
L L wrote:
itsbaddude wrote:This is what happens in communists countries such as Cuba. Yes, you can speak freely, but you may wind up a political prisoner.
It's not the comunisim.
The issue is when the country is authoritarian or a straight dictatorship.
You can't have one person in power for 50 years.
North Korea also is an authoritarian government
Did mommy take away your allowance white boy😂
It is hillarious how you Lilly white weaklings act like you have some kind of authority over non-whites😆
We The People laugh at you racist Nazi fcks.
Please keep demanding $hit from people you puny fck😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The only thing you are "entitled" is an a$$ whooping which I would gladly give you if you ever set foot outside of mommies basement😎🇺🇸
I bet sunlight hasn't hit your Lilly white skin in a decade😆
