Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
thedutchiedutch

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign

624 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Frank Merton

Trump did not win the election fairly -- it was stolen by the FBI and Russians and "Wikileaks" inventing false stuff and illegally releasing it just a week before the election, when if it was to be released it should have been done months earlier.  This is obvious voter manipulation.  Also, the constant use of misinformation and mudslinging by Trump, mainly that she was a criminal who should go to jail -- utter lies and he knew it, witness his backing off so quickly.

Finally, of course, there is the real popular vote outcome.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I think what is going to happen is that the Republicans are going to become the most corrupt and mis-run and inept administration in history and in a couple years Republicans will lose heavily, if not be almost wiped out.  Of course there are enough troglodytes in America that they may forgive everything.

Another possibility is that Trump will show himself a con artist politician and reverse himself on most of his extreme positions and actually run the country rationally.  I like his positions on most regulations and on vouchers.  What makes me scared of him are the racist in sexist and jingoist threads of his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glockornothing
3 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

Trump did not win the election fairly -- it was stolen by the FBI and Russians and "Wikileaks" inventing false stuff and illegally releasing it just a week before the election, when if it was to be released it should have been done months earlier.  This is obvious voter manipulation.  Also, the constant use of misinformation and mudslinging by Trump, mainly that she was a criminal who should go to jail -- utter lies and he knew it, witness his backing off so quickly.

Finally, of course, there is the real popular vote outcome.

So the FBI and the Russians convinced Americans not to vote for Killary, she had nothing to do with it.  She knows she is guilty, or she wouldn't have conceded so quickly.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

There are two general categories of unfair debate -- what is called propaganda, and, of course, logical fallacies.  It occurs to me that people don't seem to know how to recognize these.  There are web sites that can be found in any search to help.

Basically, propaganda uses non-rational, emotional appeal.  This is often negative (name calling, talking down to people, personal insults, attacking the person and their history rather than what they say, dismissive labeling, and others).  They can also be positive (patriotic symbols and music, religious appeals, quotes of famous people, and others.  Far and away the most effective form of propaganda is the lie -- disinformation -- invented stuff repeated over and over and made to appear legit.  To defend oneself from this sort of thing requires identifying sources of misinformation by being widely read over a broad political spectrum.

One other form of propaganda is "band-wagon," which is what has happened to me here.  It does not work, folks, except for those worried overmuch about what others think.

I won't go into logical fallacies here, although I sure see a lot of those too.  It amazes me, and I have to think that a lot of the people around here haven't had much education or they would know better.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
50 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

Trump did not win the election fairly -- it was stolen by the FBI and Russians and "Wikileaks" inventing false stuff and illegally releasing it just a week before the election, when if it was to be released it should have been done months earlier.  This is obvious voter manipulation.  Also, the constant use of misinformation and mudslinging by Trump, mainly that she was a criminal who should go to jail -- utter lies and he knew it, witness his backing off so quickly.

Finally, of course, there is the real popular vote outcome.

Frank, I know as outsiders we struggle to understand exactly how America s run their version of government, not doubt as much as Yanks struggle to understand the ins and uts of Australian or Cambodian politics.

but, I think I've got enough of a handle on it to say the way it works is that while one man in the Appalachian Mountains has exactly the same right to vote, and havevthat vote counted as a man in New York (the popular vote) the Appalancian's voice is louder,so to speak, so the few men up the mountains can't be unfairly dictated to by the masses of men in New York (the electoral college vote). 

There is no really reliable and equitable way to ensure town versus country equivalence in representation, here in Oz we just have really large electorates in the bush versus really small electorates in the cities so in effect our pollies represent roughly the same number of people - thus of course means there are more seats from he cities.

 

so while Hilary won the populate vote in some places, she didn't win enough representation across the board (the Man in New York is for her, but the man up the mountains wasn't). She, as far as the American system works, lost. not the Russians, not WikiLeaks, the fact she offered nothing to the men up mountains meant she lost in places where she should have won.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
1 minute ago, Lord Fedorable said:

Frank, I know as outsiders we struggle to understand exactly how America s run their version of government, not doubt as much as Yanks struggle to understand the ins and uts of Australian or Cambodian politics.

but, I think I've got enough of a handle on it to say the way it works is that while one man in the Appalachian Mountains has exactly the same right to vote, and havevthat vote counted as a man in New York (the popular vote) the Appalancian's voice is louder,so to speak, so the few men up the mountains can't be unfairly dictated to by the masses of men in New York (the electoral college vote). 

There is no really reliable and equitable way to ensure town versus country equivalence in representation, here in Oz we just have really large electorates in the bush versus really small electorates in the cities so in effect our pollies represent roughly the same number of people - thus of course means there are more seats from he cities.

 

so while Hilary won the populate vote in some places, she didn't win enough representation across the board (the Man in New York is for her, but the man up the mountains wasn't). She, as far as the American system works, lost. not the Russians, not WikiLeaks, the fact she offered nothing to the men up mountains meant she lost in places where she should have won.

You are defending the solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.  I see no reason why rural interests should get special protection.  The point is, not that he didn't win the election, but he did not do so fairly and the fact that he lost the popular vote means he has no mandate to do radical things.

The men in the mountains, and how they were going to vote, was know back in June.  This is not what changed -- the two or three percent of undecideds broke for Trump, when the scientific polls indicated they would break for Clinton, and the only credible reason was the trick that was played at the last moments of the campaign.  It was plain and simple dirty politics and stains Trump's legitimacy around the world.

I think I understand the American system and American history much better than those attacking me here.  English and the US has been the focus of my entire life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glockornothing
20 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

There are two general categories of unfair debate -- what is called propaganda, and, of course, logical fallacies.  It occurs to me that people don't seem to know how to recognize these.  There are web sites that can be found in any search to help.

Basically, propaganda uses non-rational, emotional appeal.  This is often negative (name calling, talking down to people, personal insults, attacking the person and their history rather than what they say, dismissive labeling, and others).  They can also be positive (patriotic symbols and music, religious appeals, quotes of famous people, and others.  Far and away the most effective form of propaganda is the lie -- disinformation -- invented stuff repeated over and over and made to appear legit.  To defend oneself from this sort of thing requires identifying sources of misinformation by being widely read over a broad political spectrum.

One other form of propaganda is "band-wagon," which is what has happened to me here.  It does not work, folks, except for those worried overmuch about what others think.

I won't go into logical fallacies here, although I sure see a lot of those too.  It amazes me, and I have to think that a lot of the people around here haven't had much education or they would know better.

If propaganda lost Killary the election in the last weeks, it should have lost Trump the election a lot earlier.  If the media bias that promoted Killary as some sort of supreme do good leader of all America was not good enough to get her elected, then the media propaganda couldn't overcome the truth people really felt about her (outside the big liberal cities). She lost do to her own doings, she sucked, outside of the fact she has been in politics her whole life she did squat to speak of. If she would have ran on anything other than Odumbo's failed policies she might have won, but most of the states as a whole wanted change.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
11 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

You are defending the solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.  I see no reason why rural interests should get special protection.

They don't get "special protection", rather the law says their interests are of equal weight, rather than equal value, to those in the big cities.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coolguy

Hillary needs to get over it she lost go home and start drinking again she is a nasty drunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
1 hour ago, Glockornothing said:

So the FBI and the Russians convinced Americans not to vote for Killary, she had nothing to do with it.  She knows she is guilty, or she wouldn't have conceded so quickly.

I don't know so much about the Russians involvement (that sounds a little CT'ish to me) but the FBI and their timing towards the end of the election, certainly did not help Clinton's case IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
9 minutes ago, coolguy said:

Hillary needs to get over it she lost go home and start drinking again she is a nasty drunk

I'm curious...how do you know that she's a nasty drunk ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
8 minutes ago, Astra. said:

I'm curious...how do you know that she's a nasty drunk ?

There are stories of her striking her secret service bodyguards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
2 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Trump did not win the election fairly -- it was stolen by the FBI and Russians and "Wikileaks" inventing false stuff and illegally releasing it just a week before the election, when if it was to be released it should have been done months earlier.  This is obvious voter manipulation.  Also, the constant use of misinformation and mudslinging by Trump, mainly that she was a criminal who should go to jail -- utter lies and he knew it, witness his backing off so quickly.

Finally, of course, there is the real popular vote outcome.

Wow...that is some elaborate conspiracy.  But maybe that is what it takes to bring down the Clinton/Bush axis that have brought endless stupid wars and untold corruption and depravity in DC.  If the FBI, the Russians, and "Wikileaks" were behind Hillary's takedown, we owe them thanks.

Or maybe the citizens of the US just got sick of the Clintons and threw Hillary out like the rancid piece of trash that she is.  Either one works for me.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
16 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

There are stories of her striking her secret service bodyguards.

Not to mention Bill's black eye. There have been reports of her violent, drunken rages for many years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
55 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

You are defending the solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.  I see no reason why rural interests should get special protection.  The point is, not that he didn't win the election, but he did not do so fairly and the fact that he lost the popular vote means he has no mandate to do radical things.

The men in the mountains, and how they were going to vote, was know back in June.  This is not what changed -- the two or three percent of undecideds broke for Trump, when the scientific polls indicated they would break for Clinton, and the only credible reason was the trick that was played at the last moments of the campaign.  It was plain and simple dirty politics and stains Trump's legitimacy around the world.

I think I understand the American system and American history much better than those attacking me here.  English and the US has been the focus of my entire life.

You seem to be under the assumption that the scientific polls were completely infallible and unable under any circumstances of being wrong when the fact remains that all of these scientific polls have major design flaws that appeared in this election.  

The first, and arguably most critical design flaw all of these scientific polls you hold in such high esteem was how they selected who was going to be polled.  The way they picked these people to be polled was by taking names from a list of people that voted in the last two elections, this caused the pollsters to miss a significant amount of people who were either first time voters or people who went politically inactive since 2008.  Since only approximately 40% to 45% of the US population bothers to vote in any given presidential election in recent history it was easy for Trump to pull a few percent from the 55% to 60% that don't normally vote to win him the election.

The second design flaw most of the polls had, which is connected to the first design flaw, is how most pollsters decided to weigh the polls.  The issue wasn't with how demographics were weighed but with how most pollsters completely discarded the voters they deemed as unlikely voters who were overwhelmingly for Trump.  The polls that went easier on these unlikely voters and didn't completely disregard them, like IBD, had Trump up by about 2%.

Third design flaw that helped to through off the polls was the fact that the scientific polls were restricted to using phone lines since it's illegal for them to call cell phone numbers which skewed the demographics.

In summary these scientific polls you keep pointing to had severe design flaws in that the demographics were skewed from the start, that they had no way to accurately gage Trump's level of support, and what hint of Trump's support they did pick up they largely completely disregarded.

Those are just the flaws in the polling and not in the Clinton campaign itself, which no poll no matter how perfect could of predicted.  Arguably the biggest blunder the Clinton campaign had, which could of easily and probably cost her the election was her almost sole reliance on big data and micro targeting.  Days after the election it came out that depending on the state that anywhere from 5% to 25% of the people targeted by Clinton's get out to vote campaign were actually Trump supporters.  It came out there was serious flaws in their data collection and targeting procedures that caused such a high number of Trump supporters to be included in their get out to vote campaign.  The damage done by the flaws was doubled in that each Trump supporter targeted was one less Clinton supporter targeted but also each Trump supporter was a vote against Clinton.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glockornothing
25 minutes ago, Astra. said:

I don't know so much about the Russians involvement (that sounds a little CT'ish to me) but the FBI and their timing towards the end of the election, certainly did not help Clinton's case IMO.

I was just responding to post #27, I do not think the Russians or the FBI influenced the election so no CT stuff here. Killary did her self in.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
1 hour ago, Lord Fedorable said:

They don't get "special protection", rather the law says their interests are of equal weight, rather than equal value, to those in the big cities.

 

Giving rural votes extra weight is no different than extra value.  You are mincing words to defend the undefendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

If the electoral college grates, the Senate would make you go ballistic, it is the same number for each state, is it not ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
15 minutes ago, Glockornothing said:

 I do not think the Russians or the FBI influenced the election so no CT stuff here. Killary did her self in.

Oh gosh...of course Clinton brought things onto herself....(without having to go into the long drawn out saga of the emails yada etc..)

Many folk had naturally already lost trust in the woman (and rightly so).....but...I still feel that it was odd timing for the FBI to bring up the subject of / Weiner / Huma / Clinton email thing.... so close to the end of the election, by throwing a spanner into the works.

My point was... it did not help her case. Don't forget she was 12 points a head of Trump prior to the surprising bomb-shell that Comey had dropped. For godsakes nobody saw that one coming. Maybe except for you of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The states that have laws for recounts have every right to execute said recount.  Considering the time that has elapsed and the transition work that has been done, it would cause a huge uproar in the Red states.  The bottom line is that it would go into litigation that would quickly find it's way to the USSC and there it would almost certainly remain deadlocked.  I suspect widespread violence would follow.  The greater chance of continuing to stir the pot would come from "Faithless Electors" but even if the Dems convinced enough Red state electors to vote Clinton, the House would still be able to appoint Trump the 45th president.  Getting rid of the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment and that standard simply cannot be met in today's America.  There were and are very sound reasons for the system as it exists.  If the change to popular vote ever occurs, no candidate would ever again have to consider the desires of any American except the city dwellers.  That would make for a situation where violence would be on the menu.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, Frank Merton said:

Giving rural votes extra weight is no different than extra value.  You are mincing words to defend the undefendable.

Try again Frank, I'm trying to explain the misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
1 hour ago, Lord Fedorable said:

Try again Frank, I'm trying to explain the misunderstood.

If all people are equal under the law (a fundamental premise of modern civilization), then every vote should have equal weight, count, whatever.  I don't see how anything different can be defended except as a way to preserve unfair leftovers from the past, and this is not defensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

If all people are equal under the law (a fundamental premise of modern civilization), then every vote should have equal weight, count, whatever.  I don't see how anything different can be defended except as a way to preserve unfair leftovers from the past, and this is not defensible.

Indeed, and in this case is ensuring they're listened to equally with the noisy and numerous city folk. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I think everyone is missing the delicious irony that this is the one time that the election results are not merely coming into question but is believed to be rigged like Trump claims ... :yes:

~ so Sparky was right, that's what they are sayin'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.