*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

I know he was ambassador to UN. I just doubt that influenced the decision to hire him as much as being seen on Fox News was.

When he hires Hannity as Press Secretary, then you can start whining.

[Poopadoop]

When he hires Hannity as Press Secretary, then you can start whining.

Why not? He has media experience and he's on Fox. Seems perfect.

[wufwugy]

I'm thinking it in terms of a global company. Having regional localisation where necessary, but perhaps only one central government that oversees everything. Nationalism is divisive and makes it harder for people to cooperate and live peacefully, seeing all humans as one nation might alleviate that. Wars probably wouldn't end altogether but it's harder to imagine any extended ones or world wars. Nuclear disarmament would likely happen. Economically it could be yuuge, think economies of scale. No tariffs, tolls, totally free movement of labor, resources and goods. The same laws everywhere, or at least based on the same framework. Far easier and more effective collaboration in research, technology, disaster relief etc. I see plenty of potential, even when thinking about it seriously.

Views about nationalism are a good example of the play between liberalism and conservatism, namely how the liberal view thinks it's making things better yet it might be doing the complete opposite. Here's how: a diverse enough population loses its diversity and its fitness, and then dies off. I recall Nassim Taleb discussing the math of this. It's like how if you have a population that breeds together enough, genes lose the diversity that provide for fitness. Instead, what leads to fit genes is when there are subgroups that mostly breed amongst themselves and somewhat mix with other subgroups. This allows diversity of genes to maintain.

The same logic and statistical nature exists for just about every aspect of human civilization. Ideas, policies, practices -- regardless of scale.

[wufwugy]

Think of it as do all people in England now live in downtown London? No, they can't afford it, or for some other reason it doesn't make sense for them. This would be exactly the same, just on a bigger scale. There are a variety of reasons and motives behind people living somewhere or wanting to move. If all of the planet was under the same fiscal and administrative umbrella, it would make perfect sense to put resources into developing all of them. It wouldn't make sense just to go steal oil from some country, it's already yours and letting the infrastructure rot there is your problem. Skin in the game? Oh and there is already a massive mobilisation of people from many areas, and either way it's gonna keep getting worse unless something changes drastically.

I know a guy who is trying to put significant resources into developing a region of Africa yet he is met but so many roadblocks from that region's government.

I say that to say this: it isn't from a lack of interest in developing poor places that those places are poor. The capacity in the people themselves already exists in those places to make them great. What's stopping them is their governments.

[wufwugy]

Recall a couple years ago when wuf was saying that moving to another country was "unviable?"

While moving holds all sorts of costs with all sorts of tiers, I think I was probably referring to the idea that one could move to a freer place if they don't like their level of freedom where they're at. That only works up to a point. Most places in the US are about as peak available freedom as exists for humanity.

It should be noted that this is "within reason". Examples like moving into the mountains and living alone and off the land are not "within reason" options and aren't a part of the soul of the topic.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Most places in the US are about as peak available freedom as exists for humanity.

lol

[CoccoBill]

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

US #17

[CoccoBill]

Was gonna say I'm anxiously waiting for nanners rageplosion, then remembered the ignore. Win some lose some.

[wufwugy]

lol

From <1% to <1%. Univariate in a multivariate world.

[wufwugy]

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

US #17

These sorts of things are headline catchers. A serious analysis would look at things like statistical distribution. These data are likely clustered instead of equidistant.

[boost]

From <1% to <1%. Univariate in a multivariate world.

Yet all other nations exist in the same multivariate world. Of course only the chart comparing US incarceration rates to prior US rates was posted, but why respond to the weakest form of the argument?

[wufwugy]

Yet all other nations exist in the same multivariate world. Of course only the chart comparing US incarceration rates to prior US rates was posted, but why respond to the weakest form of the argument?

There wasn't an argument to respond to. So I guess I shouldn't have responded at all.

[oskar]

Views about nationalism are a good example of the play between liberalism and conservatism, namely how the liberal view thinks it's making things better yet it might be doing the complete opposite. Here's how: a diverse enough population loses its diversity and its fitness, and then dies off. I recall Nassim Taleb discussing the math of this. It's like how if you have a population that breeds together enough, genes lose the diversity that provide for fitness. Instead, what leads to fit genes is when there are subgroups that mostly breed amongst themselves and somewhat mix with other subgroups. This allows diversity of genes to maintain.

The same logic and statistical nature exists for just about every aspect of human civilization. Ideas, policies, practices -- regardless of scale.

That's a big yikes for me dawg. This sounds like the white nationalist nonsense you hear when they try to justify an ethnostate. If you look at actual data it points to the polar opposite. I wouldn't go around spreading this nonsense unless you have some really convincing data to back this up.

[wufwugy]

That's a big yikes for me dawg. This sounds like the white nationalist nonsense you hear when they try to justify an ethnostate. If you look at actual data it points to the polar opposite. I wouldn't go around spreading this nonsense unless you have some really convincing data to back this up.

It's pretty incredible that you gather that from what I said.

[boost]

There wasn't an argument to respond to. So I guess I shouldn't have responded at all.

Yet you did treat it as an argument, and you chose the weakest form of it. This is telling.

And then comes this response, which is some good ol' hand waving.

[wufwugy]

Yet you did treat it as an argument, and you chose the weakest form of it. This is telling.

And then comes this response, which is some good ol' hand waving.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[oskar]

.

It's pretty incredible that you gather that from what I said.

Here's how: a diverse enough population loses its diversity and its fitness, and then dies off.

[BananaStand]

Was gonna say I'm anxiously waiting for nanners rageplosion, then remembered the ignore. Win some lose some.

Miss me much?

I find it hilarious how some people here bitch about me for doing nothing except highlighting stupidity. You should be thanking me for correcting you before you take you're hopelessly dumb ideas into a discussion with people whose opinions you care about.

Then, as soon as I'm away from this board for a single day, here you are whining about wrong it feels to spew ignorant Scandinavian propaganda and not have it challenged with simple common sense.

[OngBonga]

Miss me much?

I find it hilarious how some people here bitch about me for doing nothing except highlighting stupidity. You should be thanking me for correcting you before you take you're hopelessly dumb ideas into a discussion with people whose opinions you care about.

Then, as soon as I'm away from this board for a single day, here you are whining about wrong it feels to spew ignorant Scandinavian propaganda and not have it challenged with simple common sense.

quoted for cocco's benefit

you're welcome

[CoccoBill]

These sorts of things are headline catchers. A serious analysis would look at things like statistical distribution. These data are likely clustered instead of equidistant.

I'm sure you have links then with more serious analysis that support your views?

[CoccoBill]

quoted for cocco's benefit

you're welcome

Thanks!

[BananaStand]

Thanks!

More backwards bullshit

Thanking a person for giving you something you expressly didn't want.

[wufwugy]

I'm sure you have links then with more serious analysis that support your views?

What is my view? That the change between each ranked position of these data is not the same?

[wufwugy]

.

Why do you gather that from what I said?

[CoccoBill]

What is my view? That the change between each ranked position of these data is not the same?

You said the study was clickbait and not a serious analysis. I'm just wondering what in the 400 page report was missing to satisfy your criteria for a serious analysis. You do realize it kind of seems like you just dismissed it outright without looking into it at all, since it didn't support your views.

[wufwugy]

Ah, I wasn't referring to the study, but to the idea that a rank (like US #17) is that meaningful.

[OngBonga]

More backwards bullshit

Thanking a person for giving you something you expressly didn't want.

Almost as backwards as talking to someone who can't hear.

Unless I keep quoting you of course.

On an unrelated note, I wonder if regs can ignore mods?

[oskar]

Why do you gather that from what I said?

Why do I gather what you said from what you said? We're getting into some orwellian shit now.

You said if a population gets too diverse, it loses its fitness and dies off. You use it as a metaphor but you relate it back to genes, so you are talking about biology.
I am no biologist, but I as far as people who are not biologists go, I consider myself fairly well informed, and I can't think of anything that would support that statement.
However I've heard very similar things from people who advocate for ethnostates. If you have a source for this I'd love to see it.

So we're not getting lost, here's your post again:

Views about nationalism are a good example of the play between liberalism and conservatism, namely how the liberal view thinks it's making things better yet it might be doing the complete opposite. Here's how: a diverse enough population loses its diversity and its fitness, and then dies off. I recall Nassim Taleb discussing the math of this. It's like how if you have a population that breeds together enough, genes lose the diversity that provide for fitness. Instead, what leads to fit genes is when there are subgroups that mostly breed amongst themselves and somewhat mix with other subgroups. This allows diversity of genes to maintain.

The same logic and statistical nature exists for just about every aspect of human civilization. Ideas, policies, practices -- regardless of scale.

[wufwugy]

You said if a population gets too diverse, it loses its fitness and dies off.

I expounded on this with the below

It's like how if you have a population that breeds together enough, genes lose the diversity that provide for fitness.

Let me expound more. The phenomenon I'm discussing is standard biology. Here's an illustration: Let's say every race of humans interbred randomly. That means that Asians and Africans and whites and Latinos, everybody, partnered randomly and produced offspring. This would result in no more Asians, no more Africans, no more whites, etc.. Humankind would become one mono-race. The differences between the races we have today would vanish, and this would result in less diversity of the species. To the degree that race diversity positively affects fitness, the deterioration of it would reduce humankind's fitness.

Fully integrating diverse groups deteriorates their diversity. Zero integration between groups is also awful for fitness.

[OngBonga]

Humankind would become one mono-race.

Only if that randofucking continued. If it didn't, if these mono-race people settled into communities and generally bred locally, then local conditions such as sunlight and diet would once again begin to create evolutionary diversity.

Also, how does randofucking ever actually happen? You have to first of all mix the population thoroughly, then overcome any racial problems that might exist so there's a genuine random element to the fucking when looked at as a large sample. Then you have to keep people moving, keep the monos (is that a raicst term in this world?) from getting too much, or too little, sunlight.

[wufwugy]

Only if that randofucking continued. If it didn't, if these mono-race people settled into communities and generally bred locally, then local conditions such as sunlight and diet would once again begin to create evolutionary diversity.

Also, how does randofucking ever actually happen? You have to first of all mix the population thoroughly, then overcome any racial problems that might exist so there's a genuine random element to the fucking when looked at as a large sample. Then you have to keep people moving, keep the monos (is that a raicst term in this world?) from getting too much, or too little, sunlight.

The scenario isn't viable, though it is useful to help understand some of the other stuff we've been discussing. Things like nationalism have good, and this is one of ways.

[OngBonga]

I'm down with trying to see if it's viable.

I'll have a Chinese, Japanese and an Indian.

[CoccoBill]

Ah, I wasn't referring to the study, but to the idea that a rank (like US #17) is that meaningful.

Well sure, nothing much should be deducted from the placement alone apart from it being likely, that the peak freedoms reside in the higher placements.

[oskar]

I expounded on this with the below



Let me expound more. The phenomenon I'm discussing is standard biology.

Omg wuf, buddy. No, it's not. It could not be further from it.

Here's an illustration: Let's say every race of humans interbred randomly. That means that Asians and Africans and whites and Latinos, everybody, partnered randomly and produced offspring. This would result in no more Asians, no more Africans, no more whites, etc.. Humankind would become one mono-race. The differences between the races we have today would vanish, and this would result in less diversity of the species. To the degree that race diversity positively affects fitness, the deterioration of it would reduce humankind's fitness.

Fully integrating diverse groups deteriorates their diversity. Zero integration between groups is also awful for fitness.

No population evolves to be less fit. A gene's fitness is defined by it's ability to result in reproduction. The gene that reproduces is the most fit. So if somehow a brownish mono-race would evolve. It would be because it's the most fit one. By definition.

For a quick catch-up on the usefulness of racial classification in humans, I recommend this chapter from The Ancestor's Tale: goo.gl/bwjV46

This is one of the more edgy views on human races in biology and I recommend reading the entire chapter because it can be easily quotemined to justify some xenophobic nonsense.

You don't lose genetic diversity by interbreeding races. Those genes don't disappear. Neither do they blend like colors. The full sets are still available to be used in the next generation.


Ong is correct in pointing out that even in your hypothetical where you would remove all types of selection pressures that go into the production of a new human being, instead you just randomly shuffle sperm and eggs around (why you would do that is a different matter) - even then, the individuals would revert back to their racial differences you see today within a couple of generations once returned to the usual selection mechanism.
You see exactly that happening with stray dogs once left to their own devices will return to wolf like behaviors and features in a very short time even after thousands of years of artificial selection.

[oskar]

The scenario isn't viable, though it is useful to help understand some of the other stuff we've been discussing. Things like nationalism have good, and this is one of ways.

No, it's gobbledygook nonsense based on no understanding of the subject what-so-ever, and it's being used by xenophobic conmen to justify their ideology.

[OngBonga]

lol it's really common for people to say racism when they mean xenophobia, but it's rare to see xenophobia instead of racism.

If we're talking about biology, then that's ethnicity, not nationality.

[BananaStand]

This whole argument is somewhat silly. Oskar seems to have picked "fitness = ability to reproduce" as the hill to die on. However I really don't see anything in wuf's statements that disagrees with that.

If I understand wuf correctly, he's simply saying that there are biological/evolutionary benefits when people identify with a particular race/ethnicity that is different from someone else's race/ethnicity. Those benefits can be amplified if people organize themselves into societies and systems of ideas along those ethnic lines.

wuf was also clear to state that too much of this is just as bad as none of this.

[oskar]

lol it's really common for people to say racism when they mean xenophobia, but it's rare to see xenophobia instead of racism.

If we're talking about biology, then that's ethnicity, not nationality.

I misuse xenophobia because it's the less racy term if you pardon my pun.

When I said I have never heard wuf's argument in a scientific context, but I've heard it plenty elsewhere, this is an example:

If I understand wuf correctly, he's simply saying that there are biological/evolutionary benefits when people identify with a particular race/ethnicity that is different from someone else's race/ethnicity. Those benefits can be amplified if people organize themselves into societies and systems of ideas along those ethnic lines.

Only that there isn't much in terms of actual numbers that would support that. The US and Japan are both high up the list when it comes to prosperity and quality of life, yet they are polar opposites in terms of diversity. Studies that deal with the economic impact of immigration unanimously agree that it's a positive driving force on economy in the long term. It is only in hand-wavy hypotheticals that you can attempt to paint diversity as a net negative.
Even if the evolutionary analogue would hold any water, which it does not, that doesn't make it a useful tool. From a biological perspective we should be living in communities of 100-250 people. In the real world this is neither applicable nor practical.

[oskar]

This whole argument is somewhat silly. Oskar seems to have picked "fitness = ability to reproduce" as the hill to die on. However I really don't see anything in wuf's statements that disagrees with that.

Biologically speaking it quite literally is the hill to die on.
The part that disagrees with that is when he said that a population that has proven it's fitness by virtue of existing, will turn out to be less fit in future generations, because ???

[OngBonga]

This white genocide thing... I'm a long way from getting on board with that line of thinking, but I can honestly say I can see why some people think it's happening. It would go some way to explaining why immigration is allowed to happen to such a degree, despite the clear cultural problems it's causing. And it would also explain why there is such a demonisation of white males in today's society.

But there are many other reasons this might be happening that doesn't involve the deliberate attempt to wipe out white people. It seems pretty unlikely, and I can't really figure out why white people in control would go along with such an agenda.

[BananaStand]

Only that there isn't much in terms of actual numbers that would support that. The US and Japan are both high up the list when it comes to prosperity and quality of life, yet they are polar opposites in terms of diversity.

So? Is it really a numerical analysis?

Is a unified ethnicity important in Israel? Fuck yeah it is. Just because it's less important, or even unnecessary, in the United States doesn't mean that it's less important, or even unnecessary, everywhere. The influence of ethnicity on cultures and customs differentiates those customs and cultures from others. There are obviously downsides to this, as illustrated in the pic you posted. But there are also upsides as well. For example, the ability of free people to choose the cultures and customs that best suits them is really important.

I'm sure you agree with this because you said:

Studies that deal with the economic impact of immigration unanimously agree that it's a positive driving force on economy in the long term

.

So, if diversity is diluted, then obviously that effect would extend to the cultures and customs of the diluted groups. And as things become more homogenized, you no longer have any need, or practical purpose, for differentiating customs and cultures. It's not hard to imagine this effect to lead to the convergence and merging of governments. And then following this to its logical conclusion, you end up with one homogeneous, all-powerful, planet-ruling super government.

[oskar]

Is a unified ethnicity important in Israel? Fuck yeah it is.

Important to whom? Or for what? I think it's just as fucking stupid in Israel as everywhere else. Arguably more stupid in Israel... Definitely more stupid in Israel. What was your point again?

It's not hard to imagine this effect to lead to the convergence and merging of governments.

https://youtu.be/Wn7Ekmjvsl4?t=39s

[BananaStand]

Important to whom? Or for what? I think it's just as fucking stupid in Israel as everywhere else. Arguably more stupid in Israel... Definitely more stupid in Israel. What was your point again?

So let me get this straight. You think Israel should give in to the forces and entities who despise the fact that they exist under a unified ethnicity?

But you also think it's cuckoo to suggest this might lead to tyranny?

[wufwugy]

No population evolves to be less fit. A gene's fitness is defined by it's ability to result in reproduction. The gene that reproduces is the most fit. So if somehow a brownish mono-race would evolve. It would be because it's the most fit one. By definition.

There is more to fitness than the state of having been naturally selected and ability to breed in that context. Ability to be selected for new environments and to breed in them is also fitness. A species can breed such that it is the most fit for its current environment while losing ability to adapt to a new environment.

You don't lose genetic diversity by interbreeding races.

What I'm referring to is more along the lines of fixation and along the lines of how Frequency-dependent selection is the hypothesis that as alleles become more common, they become more vulnerable. The resultant product of a species that breeds randomly is different ability to adapt to new environments. It's like comparing how a diverse collection of corn may have in it subsets that are more able to resist a new pathogen, yet if you bred all corn together long enough, that same pathogen would more likely wipe out more/all corn.

The full sets are still available to be used in the next generation.

Are they available to use for every subsequent generation? Do they appear at an unchanged rate?

Ong is correct in pointing out that even in your hypothetical where you would remove all types of selection pressures that go into the production of a new human being, instead you just randomly shuffle sperm and eggs around (why you would do that is a different matter) - even then, the individuals would revert back to their racial differences you see today within a couple of generations once returned to the usual selection mechanism.
You see exactly that happening with stray dogs once left to their own devices will return to wolf like behaviors and features in a very short time even after thousands of years of artificial selection.

I get this. It's because in the real world there is environment differentiation. The hypothetical was in response to an idea that didn't include environment differentiation.


BTW I am not, have never been, and do not consume material by race elitists or xenophobes. The idea I expressed I got from the best mathematician I know of. Sadly I can't find the reference again because everything gets buried on Twitter.

[wufwugy]

Biologically speaking it quite literally is the hill to die on.
The part that disagrees with that is when he said that a population that has proven it's fitness by virtue of existing, will turn out to be less fit in future generations, because ???

It's because of a shock.

This is one of the main ideas in Taleb's Incerto. Shocks happen. If the system is fragile to that shock, then ruin happens. How does a system become fragile to that shock? One way is by not have differentiated enough subsystems of that system. For example, if humans exist only on Earth, the system of humankind is fragile to extinction events like large asteroids landing on Earth. But if humans are differentiated enough, like they live on Mars and some Jupiter moons and in space habitats, then the system of humankind is not fragile to the same shock.

[wufwugy]

Studies that deal with the economic impact of immigration unanimously agree that it's a positive driving force on economy in the long term.

I think for the most part these studies have things mostly correct. However, it should be noted that the data is very insufficient to say if the good is long term since the systems probably have fat tails. Granted, you can say that about LOTS of stuff (and be right). For example, science and technology might not even be good in the long term. We've only had a few hundred years of them, but events relative to them that have not happened yet that may happen in the future are near unlimited. The tails could be fat and we could find in the future ruin comes from them.

[wufwugy]

The Cold War's potential to have turned hot and ignited mass extinction may be a good example of the type of event in a fat tailed distribution in the system of chemistry. After a hundred or so years of chemistry from its inception, it might make sense to say "hey look at all this amazing stuff we have because of chemistry." Yet it also might be correct that billions of other species across the Universe said the same thing before they blew themselves up generations later.

[wufwugy]

lolo

[Poopadoop]

That happened to me just yesterday, only it's missing the part where the cop made me swear to Allah I would let the arab kid down the street sleep with my daughter.

[OngBonga]

Not really fair. More accurate would be...

*phones 999*
"Hello emergency services?"
"Hello I'd like to speak to the police please."
"Hold on..."
*connects*
"Hello police?"
"Yes I've been burgled."
"Has the burglar left?"
"Yes."
"This is not an emergency, please hang up and dial 101."
"He called me a nigger."
"We're on our way."

[Poopadoop]

You've been getting your news from the same place as Wuf I see.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, twitter. Have you any idea how often the police gleefully tweet how seriously they take online hate crimes? Every single time there's a cascade of people who tell them to catch some fucking criminals.

[Poopadoop]

Yea nice story.

[Poopadoop]

I mean if your point is that political correctness and the language police have gone too far you won't get an argument from me. I just don't see why you need to make up a story to try to support that argument.

And if Wuf's point is that the 9th most free country in the world isn't free enough, he may have a valid point too. But whoever he copied that from is weakening his own argument by making up a silly story. I can make up a silly story too - it doesn't mean what I'm arguing for is correct, it just means I'm too lazy to make a valid argument.

[OngBonga]

I mean if your point is that political correctness and the language police have gone too far you won't get an argument from me. I just don't see why you need to make up a story to try to support that argument.

I suppose I would call it a satirical view of modern Britain. You take things too seriously.

[OngBonga]

That happened to me just yesterday, only it's missing the part where the cop made me swear to Allah I would let the arab kid down the street sleep with my daughter.

You did make up a story. Why are you moaning at me for doing exactly what you did?

[OngBonga]

Sorry but you deserve an insult for that.

Dickhead.

[BananaStand]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/polit...ses/index.html

I'm getting more and more excited at the prospect of seeing Elizabeth Warren cry.

[Poopadoop]

Sorry but you deserve an insult for that.

Dickhead.

Now you must ban yourself.

Checkmate.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/polit...ses/index.html

I'm getting more and more excited at the prospect of seeing Elizabeth Warren cry.

Lol like 42% is good.

[BananaStand]

Lol like 42% is good.

It's not?

[OngBonga]

Now you must ban yourself.

Checkmate.

A telling off from mojo will suffice.

[Poopadoop]

It's not?

Sure it's awesome being the least popular president ever after 1 year into the job.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A telling off from mojo will suffice.

Mods can do whatever we please, here.
Ongie can insult whomever he pleases.

[oskar]

There is more to fitness than the state of having been naturally selected and ability to breed in that context. Ability to be selected for new environments and to breed in them is also fitness. A species can breed such that it is the most fit for its current environment while losing ability to adapt to a new environment.



What I'm referring to is more along the lines of fixation and along the lines of how Frequency-dependent selection is the hypothesis that as alleles become more common, they become more vulnerable. The resultant product of a species that breeds randomly is different ability to adapt to new environments. It's like comparing how a diverse collection of corn may have in it subsets that are more able to resist a new pathogen, yet if you bred all corn together long enough, that same pathogen would more likely wipe out more/all corn.



Are they available to use for every subsequent generation? Do they appear at an unchanged rate?




I get this. It's because in the real world there is environment differentiation. The hypothetical was in response to an idea that didn't include environment differentiation.


BTW I am not, have never been, and do not consume material by race elitists or xenophobes. The idea I expressed I got from the best mathematician I know of. Sadly I can't find the reference again because everything gets buried on Twitter.

Well I guess it's fitting that the closest analogue study you could find was done on corn. At least you're placing your subgroup of idealogues on the right branch of the tree of life.
This also relates back nicely to the discussion we had about how automation could replace creative jobs in the near future, because those insults write themselves.

Regarding fixation: Even in the most ideal abstract models, alleles will reach an equilibrium rather than get fixated. It takes some serious population bottlenecks for fixation to happen in the wild. If you feel like torturing WolframAlpha, you can plug human population numbers into those equations.

A good question to try to answer for yourself in this context would be why recessive alleles don't just disappear, and why recessive alleles that objectively suck for evolutionary fitness don't disappear either.

[OngBonga]

Mods can do whatever we please, here.
Ongie can insult whomever he pleases.

Oh sweet.

oskar you wanker.

[BananaStand]

This is why polling matters so little....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/polit...ses/index.html
^ Time Stamped 1:21 PM Eastern on 3/27

It is currently 4:46pm eastern on 3/27 as I post this. The following link is time stamped vaguely as "4 hours ago", which puts it within an hour of the previous link.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...6Bj?li=BBnb7Kz

The second link also contains this hilarious tidbit....

Trump also trailed Stephanie Clifford, 42-41, in a hypothetical election matchup, the poll found. However, when using Clifford's porn name, Stormy Daniels, she loses support and trails Trump 41-32, according to the poll.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh sweet.

oskar you wanker.

I thought you were going to go for a cheap shot, there, but wanking is the best, so I apologize for the assumption.

[BananaStand]

You want a cheap shot??

wanking is the best,

Get out more

[oskar]

I thought you were going to go for a cheap shot, there, but wanking is the best, so I apologize for the assumption.

I have been known to wank. Not a slanderous assumption.

[OngBonga]

Carol...

[OngBonga]

Rachel...

[OngBonga]

Oh yes please Carol

[Poopadoop]

This is why polling matters so little....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/polit...ses/index.html
^ Time Stamped 1:21 PM Eastern on 3/27

It is currently 4:46pm eastern on 3/27 as I post this. The following link is time stamped vaguely as "4 hours ago", which puts it within an hour of the previous link.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...6Bj?li=BBnb7Kz

Wow, that's almost as fast as you changed your mind from the polls being promising for R to the polls mattering so little.

And wow, it's almost as if different polls can give different results, as if they're only asking a sample for their opinion rather than taking a census of the entire population. Measurement error wtf???

[BananaStand]

Wow, that's almost as fast as you changed your mind from the polls being promising for R to the polls mattering so little.

And wow, it's almost as if different polls can give different results, as if they're only asking a sample for their opinion rather than taking a census of the entire population. Measurement error wtf???

I'm starting to feel like I have some kind of super power where I can make you stupid. I know you know what's wrong with what you just said there. I know you know that I didn't actually change my mind, and there are quite differentiating circumstances between my two pronouncements about polls. Yet you can't help yourself but play this juvenile and insincere game of gotchya. It seems I can actually MAKE you do this. This is useful for me to know.

Moving on....

If you've paid even a modicum of attention to anything I've ever opined on the subject of polling, you would know that I place almost zero value in any given poll. However, trends in multiple polls over time are substantially useful.

The approval rating poll that I cited states that it's the highest in 11 months. That represents a change in poll results over a long period of time. That's compelling information. Far more compelling than any single poll result.

The other poll I've cited recently is the generic Rep v Dem congressional poll. Again, I cited no specific instance as being meaningful of anything. I specifically discussed the trend over time and it's correlation with legislative successes/failures.

Sample size...wtf??????

The third poll, from The Hill, represents a single poll at a snapshot in time. Bret Samuels decided to use it as a basis for a hit-piece on Trump, which is an act I've decided to mock.

What is further deserving of mockery is this:

Trump also trailed Stephanie Clifford, 42-41, in a hypothetical election matchup, the poll found. However, when using Clifford's porn name, Stormy Daniels, she loses support and trails Trump 41-32, according to the poll.

Now, if they're polling different groups of people with each name, then I guess that's just statistical variance. However, it seems to me that they were polling the same people with different names. If so, then I think that result is worth unpacking.

In a hypothetical matchup against Stephanie, Trump gets 42. He gets LESS against a porn star. That means that there were people that decided a porn star is a better alternative to Trump, but some random bitch isn't. Either that, or there were people who would vote for Trump against some random bitch, but wouldn't bother to vote if he were running against a porn star.

The obvious conclusion from this poll is that the population sampled all had an IQ under 70