Pelosi will have to pick a VP

[Flash]

You thought it was a one-click internet poll, not one where there were people who signed up. You're trying to make it sound like this poll was like one that would appear on Fox News where anyone can just take the poll and flood the results.

I never thought that. Another lie from LV426. I am familiar with that site and know exactly what it is.

Right, again, this is an example of sophistry. You have this tendency to boil things down to a very simplistic level because details aren't your friend, and the more distinctions and differences that are acknowledged, the less your argument holds water.

Simplistic terms like claiming both parties do not engage in the same activities? Democrats=good. Republicans=bad. That simple?

Or twice as many Republicans than Democrats have been impeached in the last 50 years when actually the number of 0 Republicans and 1 Democrat? That kind of sophistry?

You accuse me of things you are most guilty of. Don't psychiatrists call that projection?

 

[LV426]

Liberals live in make believe Fantasy world.

You are so fucking stupid, a reality TV show host conned you into voting for him and toiling his baggage.

Its a dream, a very corrupt dream where the left promotes fascism and anti constitutionalism in the attempt to take away the rights of the people who elected a US PRESIDENT.

What rights are being taken away from you?

If the left continues along these corrupt lines they are not looking at the demise of Donald Drumpf but their own political party...you will in effect create in your political enemies the very thing that you are seeking

Weren't we supposed to face those consequences last year because of people yelling at Conservatives in public? That was supposed to lead to a #Walkaway and a #Blexit. Neither happened. So since your instincts were dead wrong about last year, why would they be right this year?

ONE PARTY CONTROL.

If we have to keep Conservatism around for the sake of two parties, then it deserves to die.

Did you see the map presented by Donald Drumpf that said, IMPEACH THIS?

Land doesn't vote...and more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

there is a sea of red out there you telling to go to hell.

A sea of red sparsely populated by a dying demographic.

 

[LV426]

I never thought that. Another lie from LV426. I am familiar with that site and know exactly what it is.

Oh word? Then you would know that not everyone who signs up for YouGov gets polled for each poll they run. They select a random group from those who registered, and poll them. No different than giving a pollster your phone number and they *might* call and poll you.

Simplistic terms like claiming both parties do not engage in the same activities? Democrats=good. Republicans=bad. That simple?

I've never once said that. Not once. Not ever. I've never said Democrats are all good. Never. Not once. I've never defended them that way. All I've done is point out how fucking terrible Conservatives are, and contrasted that with Democrats. In fact, there's plenty of posts of mine on JPP where I go after some Democrats for being too corporate, too beholden to special interests...like Biden, for example. I've also not defended Democrats who brand themselves as "Centrists" or "Moderates". In fact, I've called those Democrats "Conservatives" on several occasions, like the last debate, when I said -on these boards- that the Democratic Debate was 2 progressives, 1 moderate, and 7 Republicans.

Or twice as many Republicans than Democrats have been impeached in the last 50 years when actually the number of 0 Republicans and 1 Democrat? That kind of sophistry?

You know what I meant, Flash. Stop.

You accuse me of things you are most guilty of. Don't psychiatrists call that projection?

You're so lazy and so morally bankrupt that sophistry is habitual in your posts.

 

[Flash]

Wait - so now you're saying he might have talked Biden with Zalensky? You're kinda all over the place.

Not if you actually read my posts. I never said he did not talk to Zelensky about Biden. I said we have no evidence he did. My point is that because Trump said Pence talked to Zelensky about "corruption" is not evidence of anything illegal.

Yeah, well, we know as early as a couple weeks ago, and even last week, you didn't think impeachment would, could, or should happen.

Neither did the Democrats. They only started the inquiry after the transcript of released. Two weeks ago there was no proof of any activities that could get a majority of House votes. There are still not nearly 2/3 votes needed in the Senate.

One thing I said was that an impeachment attempt could create sympathy for Trump (look at Clinton's approval ratings after impeachment). You said you saw no sympathy. A friend said he sent him more money since the latest controversy. One person means nothing but today's financial disclosure results show Trump raised $125 million which crushed any of the Democrats. I think the latest effort caused supporters to circle the wagons and increased the intensity of their support.

Trump has created a picture of himself as a victim of conspiratorial forces (the Democrats/media complex, the deep state, the Republican establishment). Even Zelensky referred to the "swamp" in their phone call.

These are not normal times, Flash. This is all unprecedented. We've never had a criminal conspiracy this large and wide-ranging, that implicates so many top officials, that involves POTUS using his office to advance his personal interests ahead of the security of the country.

You said before that there wouldn't even be an impeachment.

You're still behind the curve.

The person behind the curve is willing to make predictions on what will actually happen regardless of any hyperbole of "unprecedented" or "criminal conspiracy."
Usually we hear such claims coming from Republicans about Democrats. Both the same--always exaggerate the events of today and possible consequences.

Yes, I said there wouldn't be an impeachment. And, I stand by that prediction although I figure 50-50 on that one. 90% on no conviction and 100% on no impeachment of Pence.

 

[Flash]

Oh word? Then you would know that not everyone who signs up for YouGov gets polled for each poll they run. They select a random group from those who registered, and poll them. No different than giving a pollster your phone number and they *might* call and poll you.

I know that very well. There are millions signed up from all over the world. A national sample for a poll in the U. S. only uses about 1,500 people. It depends on the poll for YouGov. There are many polls available on their site which anybody can click and say whether they like Arnold Swartzneggar or hundreds of other personalities.

Organizations that want a more scientific poll hire YouGov to do a representative sample. However, that sample comes only from the people signed up. That means it is not a random sample. But even that poll is an internet poll that only takes a few minutes to answer.

 

[Flash]

When you say "it's an internet poll" without making the distinction that it's not a free-for-all, one-click, internet poll like you would see on Fox News' Twitter or Facebook, you engage in sophistry.

It's like saying airplanes and boats are the same because they're both methods of transportation.

You said it was not an internet poll. They describe themselves as doing internet polls. I was correct in that they do internet polls--to claim I did not make a distinction between that and Facebook and Twitter is just diversion on your part arguing trivia. As you responded to me, "you know what I mean."

Every post does not have to give a long explanation to make a true statement. Nobody else thought I was wrong to call it an internet survey because I did not distinguish it from Facebook. But, many of their polls are just like Facebook or Fox in that they simply require one click. How complicated can a poll be that asks if you are making any preparations for a Zombie Apocalypse. That is less of a poll than some Facebook or Fox surveys.

Saying I did not distinguish it from Facebook is the worst kind of argument trying to find something I didn't say rather than just admit I was correct and you were full of BS.

 

[LV426]

I know that very well. There are millions signed up from all over the world. A national sample for a poll in the U. S. only uses about 1,500 people. It depends on the poll for YouGov. There are many polls available on their site which anybody can click and say whether they like Arnold Swartzneggar or hundreds of other personalities.

Right, but they still are taking the poll.

How they're registering has nothing to do with that.

Why would you think it does?

What is the difference between signing up for polling at YouGov and signing up for phone call polling from a phone pollster?

Organizations that want a more scientific poll hire YouGov to do a representative sample.

So the poll is credible then, despite what you said before.

However, that sample comes only from the people signed up. That means it is not a random sample. But even that poll is an internet poll that only takes a few minutes to answer.

Do you...do you think that when they conduct a phone poll they just pull random phone numbers out of a hat?

Or do they instead pull phone numbers randomly from vast lists of people who signed up to be polled?

So what is the difference between YouGov and a phone poll?

 

[LV426]

You said it was not an internet poll. They describe themselves as doing internet polls. I was correct in that they do internet polls--to claim I did not make a distinction between that and Facebook and Twitter is just diversion on your part arguing trivia. As you responded to me, "you know what I mean."

You didn't make the distinction because you wanted to convey the sophist argument that because the poll was conducted on the internet, it's not credible because of other internet polls that don't require registration or authentication. It's a subtle thing you're doing, but you're still doing it.

Would you say that a random poll on JPP has the same credibility as a poll conducted by YouGov?

Nobody else thought I was wrong to call it an internet survey because I did not distinguish it from Facebook.

So once again, you are exercising sophistry. I didn't say the poll was the same as Facebook. What I said was that the polling YouGov does, which you said yourself is scientific, is not like the polling you would see on Facebook or Twitter. Polls on those sites, that don't require authentication or registration, I would agree aren't credible because bots can just spam them. But a YouGov poll cannot be spammed by bots. That's the distinction you're not making. By broadly saying a poll that was conducted on the internet is not credible, you are making the argument that all internet polling is the same (there's that BoTh SiDeRiSm), therefore we should not accept it. But not all internet polling is the same, is it? In the case of YouGov, they don't just put a poll in a Tweet or Facebook post...they randomly select from their pool of registered poll takers, which means they have to actually take the survey, which also protects against spamming and bots (*I am not a bot* boxes, etc.). No different than a pollster randomly selecting phone numbers from vast lists of numbers of people who signed up to be polled (or whose information was just handed to pollsters in a bulk purchase).

And also, polling over the phone takes even less time than these YouGov polls. I was polled in 2017 during the Special Election in GA. It took less than 1 minute.

Saying I did not distinguish it from Facebook is the worst kind of argument trying to find something I didn't say rather than just admit I was correct and you were full of BS.

Your argument is that because the poll is conducted over the internet, means it's not credible (despite you saying it was scientific).

Not sure why you think that, but the only conclusion we can come to is that you think YouGov's polling is the same as unauthenticated and/or unregistered push polling that you regularly see on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or even JPP.

You can't spam a YouGov poll.

 

[Flash]

Right, but they still are taking the poll.

How they're registering has nothing to do with that.

Why would you think it does?

What is the difference between signing up for polling at YouGov and signing up for phone call polling from a phone pollster

So the poll is credible then, despite what you said before.

Do you...do you think that when they conduct a phone poll they just pull random phone numbers out of a hat?

Or do they instead pull phone numbers randomly from vast lists of people who signed up to be polled?

So what is the difference between YouGov and a phone poll?

No, no, no. Polling organizations do not take polls from people who "sign up" if they want to conduct a professional scientific poll.

Who told you that crap? The same person who told you I was Generation X or that you can kill Nazis or that YouGov is not an internet poll?

It is impossible to get an actual random sample so they use a stratified random sample. But it is not from people who sign up because only people would sign up who have a higher level of political interest and they are not random.

So, no, their poll is not credible from a scientific point of view. That does not mean the results might not be close to reality.

One difference between a phone poll and internet poll is that they can ask open ended questions getting a wider variety of in-depth answers.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to do good polls because of cell phones, people unwilling to answer or respond....

What was the margin of error for that poll?

 

[LV426]

No, no, no. Polling organizations do not take polls from people who "sign up" if they want to conduct a professional scientific poll.

They "sign up" by registering at YouGov, or by giving their phone number to pollsters or data companies.

It is impossible to get an actual random sample so they use a stratified random sample. But it is not from people who sign up because only people would sign up who have a higher level of political interest and they are not random.

So you're making an assumption about the people being polled. YouGov polls a lot of things, not just politics, as their website says: "Explore what America thinks with YouGov's popularity rankings, articles and survey results across a wide range of topics: from politics to entertainment to sports..."

One difference between a phone poll and internet poll is that they can ask open ended questions getting a wider variety of in-depth answers.

Have you ever been polled via phone? They don't do that. And YouGov surveys have portions where you can expand to explain yourself.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to do good polls because of cell phones, people unwilling to answer or respond....

"Good polls"? The polls are pretty accurate. They were accurate in 2016 when they gave Clinton a 3% margin. That's what she won the popular vote by.

What was the margin of error for that poll?

According to CBS - who commissioned the poll - it was 2.3%. Which seems quite low, and therefore quite accurate, yes?

 

[Flash]

You didn't make the distinction because you wanted to convey the sophist argument that because the poll was conducted on the internet, it's not credible because of other internet polls that don't require registration or authentication. It's a subtle thing you're doing, but you're still doing it.

Would you say that a random poll on JPP has the same credibility as a poll conducted by YouGov?




So once again, you are exercising sophistry. I didn't say the poll was the same as Facebook. What I said was that the polling YouGov does, which you said yourself is scientific, is not like the polling you would see on Facebook or Twitter. Polls on those sites, that don't require authentication or registration, I would agree aren't credible because bots can just spam them. But a YouGov poll cannot be spammed by bots. That's the distinction you're not making. By broadly saying a poll that was conducted on the internet is not credible, you are making the argument that all internet polling is the same (there's that BoTh SiDeRiSm), therefore we should not accept it. But not all internet polling is the same, is it? In the case of YouGov, they don't just put a poll in a Tweet or Facebook post...they randomly select from their pool of registered poll takers, which means they have to actually take the survey, which also protects against spamming and bots (*I am not a bot* boxes, etc.). No different than a pollster randomly selecting phone numbers from vast lists of numbers of people who signed up to be polled (or whose information was just handed to pollsters in a bulk purchase).

And also, polling over the phone takes even less time than these YouGov polls. I was polled in 2017 during the Special Election in GA. It took less than 1 minute.




Your argument is that because the poll is conducted over the internet, means it's not credible (despite you saying it was scientific).

Not sure why you think that, but the only conclusion we can come to is that you think YouGov's polling is the same as unauthenticated and/or unregistered push polling that you regularly see on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or even JPP.

You can't spam a YouGov poll.

I don't think I said YouGov was scientific.

To try to win an argument even when you are wrong you really look for trivia. I said it was an internet poll which is true. You claim that is not accurate because of what I did not say.

In many ways YouGov is just like Facebook, Twitter, or Fox. Anybody who is registered can log on give a one click response and the results appear on their web site. So LV426 engages in sophistry by not telling us they do those kinds of polls in addition to other types.

You can't spam their polls like others but that does not mean they are valid or reliable because they are by design simple (often simply agree or disagree).

The only point I originally made was that YouGov is an internet poll. That was correct. Having to include it is not like Facebook is not only unnecessary but also not true since many of their polls are just like that.

So, you were wrong no matter how many qualifiers you need to add to try to wiggle out of it. It is a poll conducted on the internet by people who can just click agree or disagree. It only people who sign up and that destroys the random sample aspect. People who choose to be included in a poll are by definition different from those who do not sign up--they are interested in giving their opinions including getting paid.

 

[LV426]

It is a poll conducted on the internet by people who can just click agree or disagree.

...which is the point of polling.

 

[LV426]

People who choose to be included in a poll are by definition different from those who do not sign up--they are interested in giving their opinions including getting paid.

But isn't that true of all polling?

 

[Getin the ring]

...which is the point of polling.

I love polls

 

[Flash]

They "sign up" by registering at YouGov, or by giving their phone number to pollsters or data companies.

No. The best pollsters do not use people who sign up to take their poll. That immediately makes them questionable because those people are not representative (or random).

Yes, 2.3% is within the standard 3% margin of error.

I'm not saying they do some good polls, only that they do internet polling.

All phone polls may not do open ended questions or in-depth polls, but some are not very scientific.

Some are not true polls but push polls or pull polls. If you tell me you are for Sanders and I ask you if it would affect your opinion if I told you Sanders had been convicted of molesting a child, that might turn you against Sanders. I did not say he was convicted, only "what if" I told you that.

And yes, the polls were quite accurate in 2016 despite all the criticism. The average of the Real Clear Politics polls (about 10 or more) was 46% Clinton and 44% Trump. The final results were 48% v. 46% (within the 3% margin of error). The national polls only show the popular vote totals and do not attempt to predict the election or electoral college. Those commentators who try to predict Hillary has a 95% chance to win is the action of that commentator and is not a problem with the polls.

 

[Flash]

...which is the point of polling.

But not necessarily accurate or representative of anything. It might be more to get clicks for advertising revenue.

 

[LV426]

No. The best pollsters do not use people who sign up to take their poll. That immediately makes them questionable because those people are not representative (or random).

Yes, 2.3% is within the standard 3% margin of error.

I'm not saying they do some good polls, only that they do internet polling.

All phone polls may not do open ended questions or in-depth polls, but some are not very scientific.

Some are not true polls but push polls or pull polls. If you tell me you are for Sanders and I ask you if it would affect your opinion if I told you Sanders had been convicted of molesting a child, that might turn you against Sanders. I did not say he was convicted, only "what if" I told you that.

And yes, the polls were quite accurate in 2016 despite all the criticism. The average of the Real Clear Politics polls (about 10 or more) was 46% Clinton and 44% Trump. The final results were 48% v. 46% (within the 3% margin of error). The national polls only show the popular vote totals and do not attempt to predict the election or electoral college. Those commentators who try to predict Hillary has a 95% chance to win is the action of that commentator and is not a problem with the polls.

Fair enough.

 

[Flash]

But isn't that true of all polling?

Somewhat, but someone who (maybe reluctantly) agrees to participate is different than a person who signs up. Someone who signs up wants to express his opinion and is usually more extreme than the average person.

It is similar to those who participate in the presidential caucus process (and somewhat less true of those participating in presidential primaries). They are more politically motivated and extreme than the average voter. That is the reason for the old adage to a Democrat, for example, must run to the left in the primary/caucus and toward the middle in the general election.

 

[Ralph]

You are so fucking stupid, a reality TV show host conned you into voting for him and toiling his baggage.




What rights are being taken away from you?




Weren't we supposed to face those consequences last year because of people yelling at Conservatives in public? That was supposed to lead to a #Walkaway and a #Blexit. Neither happened. So since your instincts were dead wrong about last year, why would they be right this year?




If we have to keep Conservatism around for the sake of two parties, then it deserves to die.




Land doesn't vote...and more people voted for Clinton than Trump.




A sea of red sparsely populated by a dying demographic.

The right of republican representation is being circumvented.....representation in the republic is guaranteed (Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1). What you have in not the entire CONGRESS attempting to impeach a duly elected POTUS void of any demonstrable HIGH CRIME....you have 6 radical democrat committee heads from states state's that learn so far left they have to stand on one leg to piss, declaring they are in the process of impeaching a seating POTUS...void of any kind of up/down vote that gives the minority party representation.

As stated......your corrupt cohorts do not possess the power to remove Mr. Trump from office. As we speak documentation is being presented that proves that certain members of congress drafted the supposed whistle blower complaint, they never as provided by law informed any member on the minority side of the isle of their intent to use this second hand information as a whistle blower complaint.

Hell even the NY times is attempting to get ahead of this corruption and spin it. "No of course....simply because the whistle blower contacted Shitless' committee BEFORE filing any type of report is just another quinky ding...………."

This entire thing is falling apart when the truth is revealed. The main stream media can on longer shield the criminal actions of the democrats...there are MILLIONS of people searching for the documented truth daily....when the left comes out with spinning propaganda...the story is debunked before the ink gets dry. Like suggesting the Biden family corruption is just another conspiracy brought up by the right....Biden did not talk to his SON about his private work, he knew nothing about his job with a corrupt energy company in Ukraine...."To quote JOE.....sum bitch....up comes a photo of Biden, a corrupt former CIA agent, Joe's son Hunter....and the head of the corrupt gas company......PLAYING GOLF together in a forsome...dated 2014....the same time period that Biden was placed on point in the Ukraine by Barry.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ted-schiffs-committee-before-filing-complaint


The signs of PANIC from the left is priceless...….did they really think they could get away with such tactics? Of course they THOUGHT THEY COULD...what they did not expect was the release of the entire phone conversation for the world to see just how corrupt and twisted they are. In front of the world Shitlless reads from a made up transcript that was most likely drafted weeks before. Funny as hell....nothing he declared was actually in the original transcript.

As stated before....its like watching Clowns get out of the clown mobile at center ring. POPCORN?

 

[reagansghost]

I suggest Hilary

plus Pence is implicated bigtime for helping Trump's attempt to extort Zelensky

welcome aboard Madam President Pelosi!