ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8gAYUupm2k

Rep. Schiff: You Might Say That's All OK. But I Don't Think It's OK.

Do you guys think it's OK?

It's nice to see men and women fighting corruption and crime, these days, don't see that very often anymore.

That speech should go down in history by the way.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Your numbers are woefully off and contradict their own reported statistics:

Of the 398 respondents who later admitted they hadn't read it:
34% said it vindicated the president
21% said they were unsure
43% said it implicated him.

For comparison, among those who said they read at least part of the report:
29% said it vindicated the president
14% said they were unsure
56% said they believed it implicated him.

Oh, I see the problem now.

See, when they said 1,101 total respondents, 22% overall belief in exoneration, and 33% overall belief in implication, I thought I had all the necessary numbers after getting the info on the 398 — because with that I could figure out the percentages for the other 703, I thought.

However, they also said 63% of respondents admitted they didn't read it. 398 is 63% of 632. This implies that 469 of the "1,101 respondents" never got to the reading question — which, I now notice they admit is question #15, while the question about the findings of the Mueller report was the very first question.

29% of 632 is 183; 398+183=581. That 581 people who stuck around to question #15 (and didn't answer it "I don't know/understand") is a lot more partisan than the 1,101. Of that 581, 32% believed the report exonerated, 47% that it implicated, and 19% were unsure. Out of the 521 who either didn't make it to question #15 or didn't know/understand whether they read it, 11% believed it exonerated and 17% believed it implicated.

Another way of looking at it: of the people who believed it exonerated and gave a proper answer to question #15, 73% admitted they hadn't read it and 27% claimed they had, at least partially. Among those unsure, 76% admitted they hadn't read it and 24% claimed that they had, at least partially. Among those who believed it implicated, only 63% admitted they hadn't read it, with 37% claiming they had, at least partially.

But I'm still troubled because at some point in the article they say that, excluding those who "didn't know or didn't read," they had 703 respondents. First, if you exclude the respondents who didn't read the report, there's no story here; second, how the fuck is 398 63% of 703? It's not even four sevenths. Did they mean bythe phantom 703 that I initially thought existed, but because they didn't answer #15 they don't count? Something about this article is rotten. Maybe there was an innocent math error along the way, rushed to get the article out; maybe the numbers are cooked and respondents not real. I have no idea, but I don't trust it. It's internally inconsistent and seems to be deliberately misleading regarding its sample size to make the poll seem bigger than it is — counting respondents who don't even finish all questions is dirty.

I do take back what I said earlier — the poll doesn't support my previous claims — but I wouldn't trust those numbers if I were you.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Yet you quote the Barr press conference heavily edited and cut version of the Mueller report, instead of the actual even redacted Mueller report. I find that hilarious.

This is actually a good exercise everyone should do.

Re-read Barr's statement with full quotes from the Mueller report.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/read-bill-barr-infamous-letter-171107726.html?guccounter=1

Heh. Looks like you're one of the 95% who didn't read the entire Mueller report.

It seems like Barr was quoting Mueller verbatim. That would be surprisingly unbiased of him. Perhaps you should give Barr more credit.

Edit: LOL, I follow the link and it outright says that Barr was quoting Mueller. Do you not understand how quoting works?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh, I see the problem now.

*followed by lots of erroneous maths*


...

I do take back what I said earlier — the poll doesn't support my previous claims — but I wouldn't trust those numbers if I were you.

Just because you keep making simple mistakes, doesn't mean the whole poll study was flawed. In fact, probably the opposite.

I despair at the thought of even acknowledging your post, you having put so much time into it, but suffice to say, it's not supported by the data or facts. It's just a random vidya gamer showing off his maths ineptitude.

"

"

rojimboo wrote:

Yet you quote the Barr press conference heavily edited and cut version of the Mueller report, instead of the actual even redacted Mueller report. I find that hilarious.

This is actually a good exercise everyone should do.

Re-read Barr's statement with full quotes from the Mueller report.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/read-bill-barr-infamous-letter-171107726.html?guccounter=1

Heh. Looks like you're one of the 95% who didn't read the entire Mueller report.

It seems like Barr was quoting Mueller verbatim. That would be surprisingly unbiased of him. Perhaps you should give Barr more credit.

Edit: LOL, I follow the link and it outright says that Barr was quoting Mueller. Do you not understand how quoting works?

Wow. Did you read the article? Do you think quoting out of context might give the wrong impression almost always?

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh, I see the problem now.

*followed by lots of erroneous maths*


...

I do take back what I said earlier — the poll doesn't support my previous claims — but I wouldn't trust those numbers if I were you.

Just because you keep making simple mistakes, doesn't mean the whole poll study was flawed. In fact, probably the opposite.

I despair at the thought of even acknowledging your post, you having put so much time into it, but suffice to say, it's not supported by the data or facts. It's just a random vidya gamer showing off his maths ineptitude.

No one is believing this attempt of yours to excuse laziness. Not even you truly believe it.

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

"

rojimboo wrote:

Yet you quote the Barr press conference heavily edited and cut version of the Mueller report, instead of the actual even redacted Mueller report. I find that hilarious.

This is actually a good exercise everyone should do.

Re-read Barr's statement with full quotes from the Mueller report.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/read-bill-barr-infamous-letter-171107726.html?guccounter=1

Heh. Looks like you're one of the 95% who didn't read the entire Mueller report.

It seems like Barr was quoting Mueller verbatim. That would be surprisingly unbiased of him. Perhaps you should give Barr more credit.

Edit: LOL, I follow the link and it outright says that Barr was quoting Mueller. Do you not understand how quoting works?

Wow. Did you read the article? Do you think quoting out of context might give the wrong impression almost always?

The article also claims — dubiously, but I won't argue that here — that the bolded quotes are the ones misleading outside of Mueller's context. The part of Mueller's report that both me and Barr quoted is NOT bolded, excepting the first word in the sentence, which is "Accordingly," — that is, in reference to that which precedes it. Your source isn't even saying that that quote is misleading. Other quotes, yeah, sure.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Steele got his information from Russians. That's why I said by proxy. The rest of your post is off-topic. If you think that using publicly (!) leaked dirt to slam your opponent is somehow cooperation, then indirectly buying dirt (paying Steele to gather Russian disinfo) surely must be cooperation to. Explain how it's not.

Sorry Xav, you've gone off the deep end there. I'd throw you life line but you're drowning yourself.

@Scrotie

Listen mate, most people admit when they are wrong. Most people argue in good faith. Most people don't gish gallop about some statistics in order to provoke a response.

Just sayin.

Now for the rebuttal.

You said

"

Scrotie wrote:

However, they also said 63% of respondents admitted they didn't read it. 398 is 63% of 632. This implies that 469 of the "1,101 respondents" never got to the reading question — which, I now notice they admit is question #15, while the question about the findings of the Mueller report was the very first question.

the article says

"

According to our data, 33% said they didn't know or hadn't read it. Let's set those honest respondents aside and look at the the 703 respondents who developed an opinion.

my maths say

63% of 1101 is about 703 respondents.

So far poll - Scrotie, 1-0.

Next you said

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

29% of 632 is 183; 398+183=581. That 581 people who stuck around to question #15 (and didn't answer it "I don't know/understand") is a lot more partisan than the 1,101. Of that 581, 32% believed the report exonerated, 47% that it implicated, and 19% were unsure. Out of the 521 who either didn't make it to question #15 or didn't know/understand whether they read it, 11% believed it exonerated and 17% believed it implicated.

the article says

"

Of the 398 respondents who later admitted they hadn't read it:
34% said it vindicated the president
21% said they were unsure
43% said it implicated him.
For comparison, among those who said they read at least part of the report:
29% said it vindicated the president
14% said they were unsure
56% said they believed it implicated him.

my math says

632 was wrong to begin with, so 29% of 632 is wrong too, and all the other numbers following.

Round 2
poll-Scrotie's woefully inadequate maths skills
2-0
more like
infinity-0

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The article also claims — dubiously, but I won't argue that here — that the bolded quotes are the ones misleading outside of Mueller's context. The part of Mueller's report that both me and Barr quoted is NOT bolded, excepting the first word in the sentence, which is "Accordingly," — that is, in reference to that which precedes it. Your source isn't even saying that that quote is misleading. Other quotes, yeah, sure.

It's like reading the two following versions of a letter/report, keeping in mind you do not readily have the full information available:

"

Attorney General William Barr released a letter to Congress on March 24, 2019, purporting to summarize the top-line conclusions of the Mueller report. Now that the full report has been made public it’s clear that Barr’s selective, partial quotations from the Mueller text amounted to brazen, dishonest sins of omission.

Version 1 - Original Mueller report full summary

"

As the report states: “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” 1

( 1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”)

Version 2 - Barr's - muh omission is not a lie

"

As the report states:[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” 1

( 1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

Honestly, do you not see a difference, and how vilely dishonest Barr was, who is supposed to represent you the people??

A

"

rojimboo wrote:

the article says

"

According to our data, 33% said they didn't know or hadn't read it. Let's set those honest respondents aside and look at the the 703 respondents who developed an opinion.

my maths say

63% of 1101 is about 703 respondents.

vs B

"

rojimboo wrote:

Of the 398 respondents who later admitted they hadn't read it:
34% said it vindicated the president
21% said they were unsure
43% said it implicated him.

Also from the article:

"

"Have you read the Mueller report?"

31% said "no, and I don't currently plan to."
32% said "no, but I intend to."

In A, you say that 33% hadn't read it, and that setting aside that number leaves 703 people who implicitly have read it. Furthermore, taking away 33% of 1,101 leaves 727-743 people remaining, depending on how that 33% is rounded; 703 isn't in that range.

In B, you say that 398 people didn't read it, and the article says that 63% of the sample hadn't read it.

Choose only one.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Choose only one.

The dichotomy fallacy, or the black and white, either or fallacy.

I choose neither, because both depend on your erroneous assumptions and misinterpretations of the statistics.

For instance, you conflate 'having an opinion' with the matter of 'reading the Mueller report partially'.

Surely you know these two are not equivalent right?

703 developed an opinion (31%+32% of 1101). So far so good?

Now 398 of those who expressed an opinion, admitted they hadn't read it.

! this is not the same thing as only admitting having not read it!

"

TL;DR: While the number of people who think the report implicates the president is 50% higher than the number who think it vindicated him, a majority of people who did not read the report and still have an opinion on it think it's really great for the president.

Is there actually something you disagree with in there? Or do you prefer to obfuscate with more gish galloping of middleschool maths?

This reminds me: that one South Park episode on Fish Sticks was truly perfect. Not only does it describe the type of person so wrapped in their own bias that they can literally look at the same evidence that you do and see something that isn't there — which is amazing enough — but it also points out how, when confronted with the dissonance between perception and reality, they'll probably just accuse you of the very thing they are doing.

I don't think there's much to be gained by arguing with someone who hallicinates a reality that doesn't exist. I trust most people see it my way on this survey, but I've argued with enough Flat Earthers to know when what I'm saying will never resonate with them. Enjoy your delusions, rojimbo.