President Donald J. Trump

[norland2424]

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

If Dr. MD MD is here, I want him to know that Brianna Wu is another "chick with a dick".

what? 

[Jackstar]

What authority does Jill Stein or the Green Party have to demand a recount?

Any citizen with one point six million dollars can do the same thing. Shrug.

[JesusJuice]

Too strong a jawline. Not really my type. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.  :

Perhaps you might be interested in some old school Ellery Sweet?

[Dr. MD MD]

Perhaps you might be interested in some old school Ellery Sweet?

Hey, did I mention that Miley is a child abusing pedophile? 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_lAPbGMvd0

[pyewacket]

http://bellgab.com/index.php/topic,2284.msg962819.html#msg962819

Thank you ET of Z- I was hoping someone was going explain it. I didn't bother because I have a hard time taking some of these Trump hating  gotcha posts seriously.

[Jackstar]

I don't wish to sound like I'm taking myself too seriously, but in my social spheres, I am wondering how many people are less upset about Trump winning, than they are about how I was right all along.

It's a non-zero number. Pretty sure. We'll see at the census.




sop it up

[21st Century Man]

Gotta laugh at the sore losers posting on here thinking that we should be upset with what Trump has done since the election.  Hell, if Trump gets a third of the things done that he campaigned on, I'll be happy.  When was the last time a politician actually delivered on all their promises or even 50% of their promises?  That said, I think Trump will try to do what he campaigned on.

The sore losers want us to be as miserable as they are and I got news for them.  That isn't going to happen.  So go back to your bars, your temples and your massage parlors and play with your playdough and coloring books.

[136 or 142]

The sore losers want us to be as miserable as they are and I got news for them.  That isn't going to happen.  So go back to your bars, your temples and your massage parlors and play with your playdough and coloring books.

If Donald Trump and Mike Pence decide to spend One Night in Bangkok and stay there permanently, I won't complain.

[136 or 142]

Yes, I see that you reason this way. For me, bell curves have analytical value in some areas, but I see the dangers in over-embracing a relativistic form of morality based on comparing data points.

One more point about this.  I think most people regard mathematics as a computational exercise.  Except where precise numbers are required, the computation is minor.  If you want to multiple 99 * 103 and instead take the estimate based on 100 * 100, for most things that's more than close enough.

So, this is an example.  You might frequently hear many people say "men are stronger than woman."  In general, sure.

But, if you think of how this phrase would look with bell curves, you would have one bell curve for men and another bell curve for women further to the left, if for example, this test was done by the ability of a representative sample of men and women lifting weights.  However, you would also see that there would be some overlap.  So, you would then note that some women are stronger than some men.  For the sake of argument, let's say that 10% of women are stronger than 10% of men (at least in regards to weight lifting.)

I think there are two important lessons here:
1.There is, of course, a  cognitive bias of stereotyping.  If you look at things as to how they fit on a bell curve, I think this might help to reduce stereotyped and prejudicial thinking a little.  Most if not all cognitive biases seem to be ingrained in humans likely based on how brains (or minds) developed, but maybe some people would question what the basis of their thinking is a little more.

2.There is a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization.  In my example, if you randomly select one man and one woman and tested their strength through weightlifting, there is a 10% chance that the woman would be stronger than the man.  As George Noory says "a 10% chance?  That's huge!"  So, again if people thought about how things fit on a bell curve, it would be obvious that it's impossible to make judgments on most things on the basis of one single example.

Of course, many cognitive biases and logical fallacies aren't subject to mathematical analysis.

[Jackstar]

sop it up

It's gonna be President Drumpf, and you're all gonna be soppin' it up with a biscuit. Mark my words.

[136 or 142]

It's all from Soros.  It just has to come in in drips and drabs so that it won't be quite as obvious. 

He most likely approached Hilary first, and when she declined then went to Jill Stein.  Of course now that Hil can't be accused of asking for the recounts herself, she's delighted to get involved.  Kabuki Theatre.

I think if they are going to do it, they should so it right.  Confirm every person that voted was alive when their ballot was cast, is a citizen, that they are a resident of the precinct they voted in, ask each to confirm they were the one that actually voted - a simple yes or no will be fine. 

If we're going to look for fraud, let's look for all of it.  Three states that were in in play sounds like a reasonable sample to me.

This is a good idea.

Of course. Dr. Jill Stein merely asked for a recount and what you are asking for here is a full audit of election procedures.  So, it would hardly be fair to expect Dr. Stein or her supporters to pay for that.

So, obviously the three states will have to pay for this.  I would also suggest that it doesn't make sense to recount the vote until this audit is completed. After all,  what's the point of a recount if a load of fraudulent ballots have been cast?  I think we (you and me) can both agree on that.

Of course, because there are always errors in elections, nearly all of which are caused by people with dementia who live in some kind of group home who vote first in their group home in advance, and then, because they've forgotten they've already voted, then vote again at the local polling station.  It probably wouldn't take more than a few days of this first stage of the audit to find a potential case of fraud in all three that turns out to be what I just outlined.

However, it would take some time to determine that, and because you didn't specify an error margin for your suggested audit, one single potential case of fraud in all three of those sampled states would require all 50 states (and D.C) to conduct their own full audits.

The election audit you outline would be extremely time consuming and therefore expensive, so I wouldn't suggest saddling the taxpayers by having the states hire additional workers to do this, just use the already hired election workers (unless, of course, there is a reason to suspect they might be in on the fraud that you're so worried about.)  Also, because there is a limited amount of workers and this would be very time consuming, in order to reduce the payout from the state treasuries at any one time, this audit should also be spread out over a period of time.

So, I suggest this audit be scheduled to take place over the next four years.  Of course, since the recount can't take place until the audit is completed, no state can certify their election results.  Since that's the case, the electoral college can't meet and Donald Trump can't be declared President.  So, I suggest we just let President Obama remain in office while this audit and subsequent recount take place.

See, maybe we (you and me) can work together.  you came up with the initial suggestion and I think I came up with the optimal way to do it. I know it works for me.

[Jackstar]

[136 or 142]

Have you eaten today?

[GravitySucks]

One more point about this.  I think most people regard mathematics as a computational exercise.  Except where precise numbers are required, the computation is minor.  If you want to multiple 99 * 103 and instead take the estimate based on 100 * 100, for most things that's more than close enough.

So, this is an example.  You might frequently hear many people say "men are stronger than woman."  In general, sure.

But, if you think of how this phrase would look with bell curves, you would have one bell curve for men and another bell curve for women further to the left, if for example, this test was done by the ability of a representative sample of men and women lifting weights.  However, you would also see that there would be some overlap.  So, you would then note that some women are stronger than some men.  For the sake of argument, let's say that 10% of women are stronger than 10% of men (at least in regards to weight lifting.)

I think there are two important lessons here:
1.There is, of course, a  cognitive bias of stereotyping.  If you look at things as to how they fit on a bell curve, I think this might help to reduce stereotyped and prejudicial thinking a little.  Most if not all cognitive biases seem to be ingrained in humans likely based on how brains (or minds) developed, but maybe some people would question what the basis of their thinking is a little more.

2.There is a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization.  In my example, if you randomly select one man and one woman and tested their strength through weightlifting, there is a 10% chance that the woman would be stronger than the man.  As George Noory says "a 10% chance?  That's huge!"  So, again if people thought about how things fit on a bell curve, it would be obvious that it's impossible to make judgments on most things on the basis of one single example.

Of course, many cognitive biases and logical fallacies aren't subject to mathematical analysis.

It has been a long time since I took a probability class, but if I remember correctly, there is a 1% probability if the chance for a strong woman is 10% and a chance for a weak man is 10%.

In real life, the probability is actually less than that, because it is a bell curve. You could have a woman be the weakest of the strongest women and the man could be the strongest of the weakest men.  But I know you were generalizing.

[SciFiAuthor]

This is a good idea.

Of course. Dr. Jill Stein merely asked for a recount and what you are asking for here is a full audit of election procedures.  So, it would hardly be fair to expect Dr. Stein or her supporters to pay for that.

So, obviously the three states will have to pay for this.  I would also suggest that it doesn't make sense to recount the vote until this audit is completed. After all,  what's the point of a recount if a load of fraudulent ballots have been cast?  I think we (you and me) can both agree on that.

Of course, because there are always errors in elections, nearly all of which are caused by people with dementia who live in some kind of group home who vote first in their group home in advance, and then, because they've forgotten they've already voted, then vote again at the local polling station.  It probably wouldn't take more than a few days of this first stage of the audit to find a potential case of fraud in all three that turns out to be what I just outlined.

However, it would take some time to determine that, and because you didn't specify an error margin for your suggested audit, one single potential case of fraud in all three of those sampled states would require all 50 states (and D.C) to conduct their own full audits.

The election audit you outline would be extremely time consuming and therefore expensive, so I wouldn't suggest saddling the taxpayers by having the states hire additional workers to do this, just use the already hired election workers (unless, of course, there is a reason to suspect they might be in on the fraud that you're so worried about.)  Also, because there is a limited amount of workers and this would be very time consuming, in order to reduce the payout from the state treasuries at any one time, this audit should also be spread out over a period of time.

So, I suggest this audit be scheduled to take place over the next four years.  Of course, since the recount can't take place until the audit is completed, no state can certify their election results.  Since that's the case, the electoral college can't meet and Donald Trump can't be declared President.  So, I suggest we just let President Obama remain in office while this audit and subsequent recount take place.

See, maybe we (you and me) can work together.  you came up with the initial suggestion and I think I came up with the optimal way to do it. I know it works for me.

Jill Stein can't win. What's the point?

[Jackstar]

What's the point?

Determining the locii of corruption can be advantageous. What's the harm?

[Jackstar]

But I know you were generalizing.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Determining the locii of corruption can be advantageous. What's the harm?

Where are the titties in this fuckin THREAD!!!  This penis isn't going to suck itself.  It's not Jackstar, is what I'm trying to say.

[mikuthing01]

Kek works in mysterious ways

Author dies after diagnosing himself with ‘Post-Trump Stress Disorder’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/25/jeff-gillenkirk-author-dies-after-diagnosing-himse/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8tYJBCNhjQ

[Jackstar]

It's not Jackstar

I AM, what I AM.

[Dr. MD MD]

Kek works in mysterious ways

Author dies after diagnosing himself with ‘Post-Trump Stress Disorder’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/25/jeff-gillenkirk-author-dies-after-diagnosing-himse/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8tYJBCNhjQ

Excellent! The Trump virus continues killing off all the chaff, leaving only the wheat of greatness left in America. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I AM, what I AM.

A fuckin retard?  Way to reach for the stars Jack

[Jackstar]

Author dies

[Jackstar]

A fuckin retard?

Of whom are you inquiring?

[Jackstar]

the wheat of greatness

*throws up in mouth a little*

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Of whom are you inquiring?

Whoa.  You are more than one retard?  I need a moment to process this.

[Dr. MD MD]

*throws up in mouth a little*

You can consider that the vomit of greatness. 

[Jackstar]

I can, but I shan't.


MEANWHILE
#WHEREISASSANGE

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I can, but I shan't.

I know.  It's important for your self image to think you matter