The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[SheepDog4Life]

So by quickly looking at this article by a source I have no reason to either believe or not believe the following thought comes to mind. This is after all only one source are there any others and how credible are these sources?

Gee, it's not like it's published in a peer-reviewed academic journal about elections or anything...

There were two other published papers, one used Harvard survey data, the other used government survey data. Both concluded that 14-16% of non-citizens register, and a third to half of those vote. The "argument" against those two was that the sample size was too small, though the 95% confidence error did not reflect this criticism (the standard was of expressing possible inaccuracy in a sample).

Anyhow, for this 2014 paper the researchers conducted their own original survey data with a sufficiently large sample size... and they came up with essentially the same result... 15%.

There are three different academic papers out there, each based upon a different survey data source (i.e. the three are independent), and all three conclude that non-citizens ADMIT registering to vote at the rate of 15% +/- 1%.

And, these are likely "floors" as the survey bias is to NOT admit committing a crime.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Note that the US Census form asks the same three questions:

1) Are you a US citizens?
2) Are you registered to vote?
3) Do/did you vote?

But, non-citizens are not asked questions #2 and #3. It's like (some) people don't want to know how big (or small) the problem is...

 

[Dddrees]

Gee, it's not like it's published in a peer-reviewed academic journal about elections or anything...

There were two other published papers, one used Harvard survey data, the other used government survey data. Both concluded that 14-16% of non-citizens register, and a third to half of those vote. The "argument" against those two was that the sample size was too small, though the 95% confidence error did not reflect this criticism (the standard was of expressing possible inaccuracy in a sample).

Anyhow, for this 2014 paper the researchers conducted their own original survey data with a sufficiently large sample size... and they came up with essentially the same result... 15%.

There are three different academic papers out there, each based upon a different survey data source (i.e. the three are independent), and all three conclude that non-citizens ADMIT registering to vote at the rate of 15% +/- 1%.

And, these are likely "floors" as the survey bias is to NOT admit committing a crime.

So aren't these the same kind of criticisms akin to the same issues that people have with polls? If so what's your stance on polls?

Well, it's not like I'm actively seeking information on a subject I'm not yet convinced there is a problem. So where are these reports?

By the way though someone just happened to mention your burden of proof on the matter of climate change just happens to be higher. Is that true?

 

[jamil]

Well Jamil (not that I've seen you do it), but we both know what the complaint would be if one used a university research source to support a position that is considered "liberal."

Lol. Dddrees?

Do you have any complaints about this line of reasoning?

C'mon. Here's your chance to show how consistent you are.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So aren't these the same kind of criticisms akin to the same issues that people have with polls? If so what's your stance on polls?

I think the biggest criticism of polls is whether or not they predicted the "winner". First, there wasn't a national poll properly constructed to do that as it would actually take 51 (two in Maine) separate polls to do so. As far as I know, most of the polls DID predict the national popular vote within +/- 3%, which was all they claimed to do.

Well, it's not like I'm actively seeking information on a subject I'm not yet convinced there is a problem. So where are these reports?

So, in other words, you don't know cr@p about this subject, but it doesn't stop you from spouting off a bunch of drivel. Most have already figured that out.

By the way though someone just happened to mention your burden of proof on the matter of climate change just happens to be higher. Is that true?

Nope, not only false, but damn false. Whoever told you that is a lying, pants on fire liar, and you would do well to verify anything from that source before repeating it, to avoid looking like a lying fool.

 

[Dddrees]

Lol. Dddrees?

Do you have any complaints about this line of reasoning?

C'mon. Here's your chance to show how consistent you are.

What reasoning that somehow I'm tied to a liberal or conservative point of view or that it came from either and because of that it's either right or wrong, I thought I was pretty clear if you provide me enough credible evidence that I would be willing to listen. How many times and different ways do I have to say it.

Just don't use anything that comes from the Trump University as your basis of truth.

 

[Dddrees]

I think the biggest criticism of polls is whether or not they predicted the "winner". First, there wasn't a national poll properly constructed to do that as it would actually take 51 (two in Maine) separate polls to do so. As far as I know, most of the polls DID predict the national popular vote within +/- 3%, which was all they claimed to do.



So, in other words, you don't know cr@p about this subject, but it doesn't stop you from spouting off a bunch of drivel. Most have already figured that out.



Nope, not only false, but damn false. Whoever told you that is a lying, pants on fire liar, and you would do well to verify anything from that source before repeating it, to avoid looking like a lying fool.

This make sense, very reasonable as well.

No what I'm trying to say is that I admit i may not know enough and I am willing to listen. H*** I see nothing wrong with that in fact I see that better than claiming I'm the almighty expert or that I am closed minded and I havemade up my mind. To this point I don't think I've seen enough to convince me it's an issue but I'm willing to listen. This doesn't mean I'll eventually agree, but I'm willing to listen.

Just clearing the air, no offense meant just asking and now I know. Thanks

 

[Kutnupe14]

Lol. Dddrees?

Do you have any complaints about this line of reasoning?

C'mon. Here's your chance to show how consistent you are.

I not saying I find issue with the university study you posted. In fact, I consider it a scholarly source, able to be cited factually in any research paper. What I'm saying, is that if a study had indicated something that would be considered to be supporting left-wing views, many of INGO's membership would dismiss it because colleges are bastions of liberal thinking intent of destroying conservative ideology. That's my only point (which I suspect you already recognized). Do you disagree?

 

[Dddrees]

I'm still waiting to see the other articles that where mentioned.

 

[jamil]

What reasoning that somehow I'm tied to a liberal or conservative point of view or that it came from either and because of that it's either right or wrong, I thought I was pretty clear if you provide me enough credible evidence that I would be willing to listen. How many times and different ways do I have to say it.

Just don't use anything that comes from the Trump University as your basis of truth.

Inthought you weren't into little johnny comparisons. You and Kut complain about it. Except when you do it.

 

[Dddrees]

Inthought you weren't into little johnny comparisons. You and Kut complain about it. Except when you do it.

??

 

[actaeon277]

The lies we were told about who would silence free speech - Chicago Tribune

 

[ghitch75]

The lies we were told about who would silence free speech - Chicago Tribune

very good read and spot on.....

 

[actaeon277]

The lies we were told about who would silence free speech - Chicago Tribune

Actually, there are people on the right that would do the same. Just seems to be more prevalent on the left. Especially lately.

 

[bwframe]

Pissing the right people off = Winning!

Unhinged Democrat Senator: Trump's Vote Fraud Commission is 'What Vladimir Putin Wants'



Russia, Russia, Russia

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Inthought you weren't into little johnny comparisons. You and Kut complain about it. Except when you do it.

Yeah wut, lol? Where have I ever made a little Johnny comparison, and honestly I'm not even sure what that even means. I'm just asking when is it appropriate to cite studies from universities since often the belief that they are liberal strongholds often renders their studies as biased.

 

[jamil]

Actually, there are people on the right that would do the same. Just seems to be more prevalent on the left. Especially lately.

Plus not many movies depicting leftists as monsters comefrom the left as the right.

Yeah wut, lol? Where have I ever made a little Johnny comparison, and honestly I'm not even sure what that even means. I'm just asking when is it appropriate to cite studies from universities since often the belief that they are liberal strongholds often renders their studies as biased.

I not saying I find issue with the university study you posted. In fact, I consider it a scholarly source, able to be cited factually in any research paper. What I'm saying, is that if a study had indicated something that would be considered to be supporting left-wing views, many of INGO's membership would dismiss it because colleges are bastions of liberal thinking intent of destroying conservative ideology. That's my only point (which I suspect you already recognized). Do you disagree?

It's not that I disagree. It's that I'm not sure why that had to be said here. It's like you're trying to use a form of "but Johnny" to sort of deflect from what the study said. Sure there is a lot of confirmation bias going on both sides. And I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous.

 

[Dddrees]

Plus not many movies depicting leftists as monsters comefrom the left as the right.






It's not that I disagree. It's that I'm not sure why that had to be said here. It's like you're trying to use a form of "but Johnny" to sort of deflect from what the study said. Sure there is a lot of confirmation bias going on both sides. And I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous.

Well it is amazing you said it after I said a few times I was just looking for credible information. I may have asked for more than one source but I think that's more than reasonable as well.

 

[Twangbanger]

...I'm just asking when is it appropriate to cite studies from universities since often the belief that they are liberal strongholds often renders their studies as biased.

I think it's always appropriate to cite studies, for the purpose of argument. It's just not appropriate to expect that any university study presented is beyond reproach and criticism, or is a definitive word on anything, simply because researchers said it, and especially so if it seems to be contrary to logic and reasoning. I've never really bought into this line of reasoning that goes, "Duhh, here's my study, so unless you have a better one of your own, mine is established as correct." I think in general, citing studies should be cited in addition to well reasoned-arguments of your own, not in place of it. You should come here fully expecting it to be challenged. That doesn't seem to be the case immediately here, so I'm really not sure what the issue even is (and I did not see what the subject study was even about). Do you have an example that you're really beefed about, or is this all hypothetical? I think you're possibly reacting to the fact that on INGO, possibly unlike other forums you're familiar with, faith in academia is not christ-like. And I just do not see that as a problem.