SOTU

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ColoradoHighGrower said:
Mazel toving and twiddling of fingers on msnbc with a celebratory countdown....... :spew:

View attachment 4086692
Click to expand...
read whatever you like in that expression.

If I were to put a label to it, I'd say her expression says "I told you these people couldn't run the government anywhere except into the ground."

This shut down is entirely within the power of Republicans to end. They have the majorities in Congress and the presidency. In my opinion, Democrats in the Senate shouldn't have bailed on Dreamers. Even so, Republicans can't agree on a compromise that gave them all the leverage when it came to immigration and funded important military and social arms of government for two years. Nor can they propose an alternative with a hope of passing.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ColoradoHighGrower said:
Ummmm..... This is a teachable moment:View attachment 4082685
Click to expand...
I see a pattern. Areas with more cows and corn than people have fewer people. All your map does is show where people live. Of course some of those people collect food stamps. Duh.
ColoradoHighGrower said:
@UncleBuck sure, foodstamps are a drop in the bucket of all fed spending, but so is all of social welfare and entitlements spending in the grand scheme. What's your point?

Your data is 13 years old, not that a whole lot has changed during that time.... here's a good article that demonstrates why these stats are easily manipulated to a given argument's advantage:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/california-today-federal-taxes.html

And here's ones that discusses the bipartisanship of entitlement recipients:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/

Also, I'd believe the Pew Trust's stat analysis and sources more than CNN and some guy named jesse erlbaum... this figure proves erlbaum is full of it overall, cherry-picking to bend the numbers... there are cointless ways to normalize, omit and include as seen fit by the argument being posed:

View attachment 4082698


And:
View attachment 4082702



Regardless, I'd say my correlation of dems versus foodstamps is a pretty telling comparison, especially since my post is broken down by county, and not lumping entire states together.... So yeah, nice try? Keep it up SoCal! How's it going Massachusetts? Miami? Chicago? Detroit? Seattle!? Portlandia? NYC?? San Francisco!!?? Gasp!
Click to expand...
More people are Democrats. You sure take a long time to state the obvious. Let's break it down:

18% of the population have ever accepted food stamps

Most of the people in the population say they are Democrats, 35% D to 25% R

More Democrats have accepted food stamps, 22% D to 10% R.

You mix up simple math with some sort of morality.

Don't use the word correlation. You don't understand what it means.
 
ColoradoHighGrower

ColoradoHighGrower

Well-Known Member
Normalized per capita fog. And there is no short way of saying these things correctly. The issue is much more nuanced than a simple 4 line party line. And yes, i have an intimate understanding of what correlation is. I'm a physicist, and a data scientist. Yes, we smoke pot too....
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ColoradoHighGrower said:
Normalized per capita fog. And there is no short way of saying these things correctly. The issue is much more nuanced than a simple 4 line party line. And yes, i have an intimate understanding of what correlation is. I'm a physicist, and a data scientist. Yes, we smoke pot too....
Click to expand...
The caption says: "Darker areas have more people on food stamps". New York has a lot more people than Amarillo Texas. New York has more people on food stamps. You were shagged by a manipulative graphic, dude. There is nothing in the graph that says what you claim.

Oh and I totally believe everything you say now that you tell me you are a scientist. I make my investment decisions based upon advice I get here too. lulz

"Regardless, I'd say my correlation of dems versus foodstamps is a pretty telling comparison, especially since my post is broken down by county, and not lumping entire states together."

You use correlation as if it explains anything. A high correlation is useful to help piece out the underlying reasons. High correlation by itself is not useful nor does it prove anything. Did you know that the number of lemons imported from Mexico in a year and highway fatality rates are correlated?

upload_2018-2-9_9-35-57.jpeg

You have a bias and you looked for something to prove it is right. You are not alone, That kind of fake logic is used by propagandists all the time.
 
ColoradoHighGrower

ColoradoHighGrower

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The caption says: "Darker areas have more people on food stamps". New York has a lot more people than Amarillo Texas. New York has more people on food stamps. You were shagged by a manipulative graphic, dude. There is nothing in the graph that says what you claim.

Oh and I totally believe everything you say now that you tell me you are a scientist. I make my investment decisions based upon advice I get here too. lulz

"Regardless, I'd say my correlation of dems versus foodstamps is a pretty telling comparison, especially since my post is broken down by county, and not lumping entire states together."

You use correlation as if it explains anything. A high correlation is useful to help piece out the underlying reasons. High correlation by itself is not useful nor does it prove anything. Did you know that the number of lemons imported from Mexico in a year and highway fatality rates are correlated?

View attachment 4086912

You have a bias and you looked for something to prove it is right. You are not alone, That kind of fake logic is used by propagandists all the time.
Click to expand...
Actually, all i did was google "political affiliation versus social benefits," and used nothing beyond the first half page of results. Also precisely why i posted a link to an artical that discusses the dangers of twisted stats regurgitated by biased dumbasses and clans of political whores you're claiming i belong to.. Not trying to convince you of anything by sharing my education on data and stats btw, other than the fact that i know what correlation is. Also, to avoid bias is why i posted like 5 links and data visualizations only from the Pew Trust instead of one biased fake cherry-picked graphic from CN fucking N whores.... sorry for the longer than 4-line reply.... as i said before, this is a rather nuanced issue that you clearly don't get... I'm moderate, and was simply trying to convey that buck is a dumbass that more closely fits your idea of dangerous political bias. Did i even mention causality? Do you know what that is? No? Yes? Did you know rape increases with icecream sales? Must be all those white bigots chomming on vanilla cones and gettin all hopped up on cornsugar, eh? Equally nonsensical correlation... i get it.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ColoradoHighGrower said:
Actually, all i did was google "political affiliation versus social benefits," and used nothing beyond the first half page of results. Also precisely why i posted a link to an artical that discusses the dangers of twisted stats regurgitated by biased dumbasses and clans of political whores you're claiming i belong to.. Not trying to convince you of anything by sharing my education on data and stats btw, other than the fact that i know what correlation is. Also, to avoid bias is why i posted like 5 links and data visualizations only from the Pew Trust instead of one biased fake cherry-picked graphic from CN fucking N whores.... sorry for the longer than 4-line reply.... as i said before, this is a rather nuanced issue that you clearly don't get... I'm moderate, and was simply trying to convey that buck is a dumbass that more closely fits your idea of dangerous political bias. Did i even mention causality? Do you know what that is? No? Yes? Did you know rape increases with icecream sales? Must be all those white bigots chomming on vanilla cones and gettin all hopped up on cornsugar, eh? Equally nonsensical correlation... i get it.
Click to expand...
So many words for so few actual thoughts.

Its like the SOTU address all over again...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ColoradoHighGrower said:
Actually, all i did was google "political affiliation versus social benefits," and used nothing beyond the first half page of results. Also precisely why i posted a link to an artical that discusses the dangers of twisted stats regurgitated by biased dumbasses and clans of political whores you're claiming i belong to.. Not trying to convince you of anything by sharing my education on data and stats btw, other than the fact that i know what correlation is. Also, to avoid bias is why i posted like 5 links and data visualizations only from the Pew Trust instead of one biased fake cherry-picked graphic from CN fucking N whores.... sorry for the longer than 4-line reply.... as i said before, this is a rather nuanced issue that you clearly don't get... I'm moderate, and was simply trying to convey that buck is a dumbass that more closely fits your idea of dangerous political bias. Did i even mention causality? Do you know what that is? No? Yes? Did you know rape increases with icecream sales? Must be all those white bigots chomming on vanilla cones and gettin all hopped up on cornsugar, eh? Equally nonsensical correlation... i get it.
Click to expand...
triggered.
 
ColoradoHighGrower

ColoradoHighGrower

Well-Known Member
Not triggered.. although, jew hater is pretty rough, and couldn't be futher from the truth.... ok. sorry I'm not always as concise as possible too. I shouldn't use that as a qualifier - my only point here is buck's original post paints a quite biased view of entitlements payouts versus states productivity through the lens of political affiliations...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
It's well known that people are better at recognizing other people's biases and poor at seeing their own.

That's why it's better if the poster would to stick to facts and information they understand. Something they demonstrate poor ability in doing.

Such as their butchery of what correlation means. Also it should read the titles in the graphics they post. They completely misrepresented what they said.

He may go now.
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ColoradoHighGrower said:
Not triggered.. although, jew hater is pretty rough, and couldn't be futher from the truth.... ok. sorry I'm not always as concise as possible too. I shouldn't use that as a qualifier - my only point here is buck's original post paints a quite biased view of entitlements payouts versus states productivity through the lens of political affiliations...
Click to expand...
shut the fuck up
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ColoradoHighGrower said:
Not triggered.. although, jew hater is pretty rough, and couldn't be futher from the truth.... ok. sorry I'm not always as concise as possible too. I shouldn't use that as a qualifier - my only point here is buck's original post paints a quite biased view of entitlements payouts versus states productivity through the lens of political affiliations...
Click to expand...
His post was backed by some pretty solid statistics and I'm happily the first to call bullshit when I see it.

If you're wrong about something just concede the point, its not a loss, it means you've learnt something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top