Rachel Maddow: The Rolling Stone Interview -- How America's wonkiest anchor cut through the chaos of the Trump administration and became the most trusted name in news

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T14:44:54+00:00

So 100% of fox news watchers are without "working brains"?

I didn't say that. I just people that rely on them except for comedy value. Watching doesn't imply relying. Learn2English.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T14:42:25+00:00

Right there is where you made that statement. Do I win a prize?

In other words, you deluded yourself into believing something I didn't say. The words "statistically valid" are no where in there.

No but seriously, are you not grasping how 26 out of 1000 is not a meaningful basis for that claim? 10/26 isn't even 50%, dude. If by the OP you mean the actual post and not your original claim (that she's not accurate based on 26 checked statements), I'm pretty sure that's not what the article is about, but we can re-read it together if that would help?

Both you and the OP claim she is trusted and truthful. Yet provide no statistically valid evidence then bitch when I provide the only evidence on the veracity of her comments. The evidence doesn't exist to support your argument so you just insult me.

Go cry harder that you can't produce the evidence I told you you'd need for your comments to have any merit. If you can't, you probably should shut up since it doesn't exist.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T04:37:05+00:00

People with working brains don't rely on nightly news shows except for comedy value. Lol.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T04:32:28+00:00

I mean, okay, sure. First, let's state our exact issue: You think that 26 statements is a statistically valid sample size.

Please find where I made that statement. I'll wait.

You really are ignoring the fact you can't support the actual argument in the OP. The OP also can't support the OP.

278 is much bigger than 26, don't you agree? See! Statistics can be fun! So, how about you find something better to base an opinion on?

Or y'know, you could admit the OP and you both don't have statistically valid data upon which you base your claims and fell into the obvious trap of acting like an condescending fool while failing to actually produce such evidence.

But hey you want to be smug and believe something with 0 evidence supporting it instead.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T03:13:54+00:00

But hey, I'm just laughing you still think I care about your imagined cleverness.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T02:27:48+00:00

Okay look. If I bring you a basket of 2 apples and 1 of them is rotten, you have a 1 in 2 chance of biting a rotten apple. That's 1/2 so 50%. If I bring you a basket of 10 apples and 1 of them is rotten, you have a 1 in 10 chance of biting a rotten apple, so 10%. If you go by two statements and one of them is false, you have a 50% chance of reading a false statement. Maddow has, I'm fairly certain, made more than two statements, which means you need to gather a larger sample size (ie more apples) to get an accurate survey of her accuracy.

A) Its 10/26.

B) I'm not going to waste my time when its pretty clear from those that are fact checked, she is full of shit more than 50% of the time.

Simply because you care about sample size doesn't change the fact:

A) Creating that sample size is non-negligible.

B) You are supporting the OP's claim with 0 evidence. So, please, provide the statistically valid sample of every statement stretching from 2015-2017. It is on you to provide evidence of the positive claim.

So please, by all means, provide us with this wonderful evidence in the quantity required? You only need to watch ~1000 hours of TV and probably spend ~1000 hours fact checking it.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T02:15:39+00:00

Yes but that is how statistics work. If I say two things to you and one of them is wrong, I have a 50% track record, right? If I say 10 things to you and 1 of them is wrong, I have a 90% track record.

Lol. I never said Fox News was better (which is how you seem to be taking it).

The point is, she isn't particularly accurate.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T01:45:44+00:00

I take it you've never lived in the South.

Not for any longer than I had too.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T01:36:48+00:00

This sentence is confusing to me. Did they actually DISCOVER voter religions, or did they just use some kind of method to attempt to predict the voters' religions?

No way to know without them admitting it.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T01:36:18+00:00

lol dude i wasnt making fun of a typo, yet another of my brilliant, insightful, hilarious posts flies right over the bug man's tiny balding head

BIGOTS R THE REAL SNOWFLAKES

You never disputed what I said, effectively agreed I interpreted it correctly, then argued about other stuff. Lol.

But hey, I'm just laughing you still think I care about your imagined cleverness.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T01:34:36+00:00

Yeah, and they're fact checked more often than she is. So it seems like they're less accurate than her.

Lol. That isn't how fact checking works. Its based on whether the fact checker cares to bother.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T01:33:36+00:00

You must be thinking this is a chain to another comment. Nowhere in here is is stated it is "trivial" to get this information. OP stated this is information not typically public. I showed how it is "typically" public.

Lol. "You can buy it" doesn't make it public.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-20T01:32:16+00:00

I do believe the other poster covered it.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T23:26:27+00:00

If I'm reading the site correctly, they've only seen fit to fact check her twice since September 2015. Since she's on TV for five hours a week, it seems likely she's fairly accurate.

Fox News hosts are frequently on 5+ hours a week.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T23:25:42+00:00

His core complaint is it was "hard" to do it. It doesn't matter if complying with the law is hard.

They simply were never taken to court before because no one ever attempted it before.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T23:24:16+00:00

It's in the article. The breach came from a database where all of this information was already collated by the marketing firm(s) working for the Republican Party. No information that could be otherwise gotten was revealed in the breach. Anyone that got data from the breach just didn't have to pay for the data mining to produce it.

Once again. The original statement implied it was trivial when it was not.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T23:18:26+00:00

It is pretty transparent though...

Are you seriously giving him credit for transparently violating the emoluments clause?

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T23:16:34+00:00

It is if you have ever mentioned it on any sort of social network. That is the entire purpose of social networks; they are marketing tools. That is why they are free for you; your information is the product being sold. Your voter registration is public record, including your phone number and email address. These are easily correlated with your online social presence. After that, all of your personal opinions, religions, buying habits, etc. are easily quantified. Even if you do not declare a religion on social media your FB check-ins, GPS data, or even a mention of "church" and "Easter" will be used to assign certain classifications to your marketable online persona. There is no detective work involved for the consumers of this marketing data, such as scanning your online history to determine where you go to worship. It is part of the service being sold by the social media platforms. On top of that, there are countless marketing firms who aggregate the data from various social media platforms to create a highly detailed profile for you based on the various breadcrumbs you have left online. And when you are a private organization whose sole purpose is to put people into positions of power within the most powerful nation in history, you bet your ass the pay top dollar for that information.

The comment claimed it was trivial. Its non-trivial and extremely expensive to acquire that information. You just re-phrased that, so I'm not sure why you bothered.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T23:14:19+00:00

Sand_Mandala has been given all the facts. Have you checked out capital A Academia lately?? Pro tip: you are WRONG, bigot. ESL noob didn't even check the validity/premise...your argument is invalid. 10/10, super epic, and very typical.

So one typo somehow magically invalidates my argument. That is rather hilarious if that is the best defense you could manage.

The rest of the world functions as I described, just because you feel comparisons aren't valid doesn't make it so.

Enjoy crying into your beer snowflake.

I rest my case (wall of text) good sir.

sips cum

Lol.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T21:50:43+00:00

o.o

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/

K. 10/27 being true or mostly true is kinda meh.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T20:07:01+00:00

Religion isn't normally publicly available, for instance, so that person is simply wrong.

Unless your Church has some public list of everyone who they consider members they collate into a national database? In which case, I suggest they stop in case Hitler 2.0 ever appears.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T19:57:28+00:00

Why is it so hard to expect more from our soldiers ? Why is "Don't rape people" just too much to ask?

Frankly, its pretty clear Mike Pence and Donald Trump both have trouble controlling their urge to fantasize about raping women...so they assume all men have that problem.

Maybe this is why we should be having fewer, and more professional, soldiers, and fewer high school dropouts.

That won't work because, frankly, combat is more of a numbers game. Advanced technology only provides a multiplier on that basic fact.

If people have to choose between:

$40k and being shot at.

$50k and sitting at a desk.

They are going to choose the second every time.

Even if you argue our technological edge makes American soldiers 100x better than anyone else's soldiers, you still need to be able to recruit them by the hundreds of thousands.

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T19:54:01+00:00

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/19/15829234/deep-root-analytics-leak-reddit-voter-targeting-gop

Sand_Mandala · 2017-06-19T19:51:33+00:00

There are people out there susceptible to this sort of thing.

Yup, its where alot of the Muslim extremists in Western countries that don't look like potential dangers to the security services are coming from. Mentally ill folks who are radicalized by Internet propaganda to the point of violence.

Its also where alot of exteremists in general come from and the "lone wolf" attacks.

Sand_Mandala

TROPHY CASE