YOU'RE FIRED!

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .

Image

“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"


"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source


So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #161

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #161]

Why do you dismiss it? Is your study replicated by anyone else? Do you understand the purpose of replication in science?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #162

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:10 pmVoter turnout in counties with a 75% nonwhite population declined by 1.5% more in states that just adopted strict ID laws than in states that did not.
Seriously? That's all? Just give minorities 1.015 votes apiece and have the stricter laws.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #163

Post by The Barbarian »

Purple Knight wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:20 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:10 pmVoter turnout in counties with a 75% nonwhite population declined by 1.5% more in states that just adopted strict ID laws than in states that did not.
Seriously? That's all?
If every state rigged the system like that, Trump would have won. That's why Georgia republicans figured that they just needed to cheat harder, and wrote an even more extreme law to exclude minorities. They got so extreme, it's now a crime to give water to someone standing in line to vote. And if that doesn't work, they'll find other ways to rig the system.
Just give minorities 1.015 votes apiece and have the stricter laws.
Why not just stop trying to rig elections by excluding minority voters? That would work.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #164

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:25 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #161]

Why do you dismiss it?
The study is confirmed by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office:

States that have toughened voter identification laws have experienced steeper drops in election turnout than those that have not, including disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, according to a nonpartisan congressional study [text, PDF] released on Wednesday by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website]. By June of this year, 33 states had enacted voter photo ID laws to reduce fraud. The GAO report compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee, two states which strengthened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections, to voting in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine, which did not change their ID requirements. The report concluded that reductions in voter turnout were about two percent greater in Kansas, and from two to three percent greater in Tennessee than they were in the four other states examined. According to the report, “GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements.” The report said that reduced voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those aged 44 to 53 and that the drop was also more pronounced among black voters than white, Hispanic or Asian voters. The GAO also determined that, in at least one state, an estimated 85 percent of white registered voters and 81 percent of African-American registered voters had a valid ID for voting purposes. The study found that the costs to obtain certain forms of photo IDs vary by state and range from $14.50 to $58.50.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2014/10/con ... y-turnout/
Is your study replicated by anyone else?
Yep. Posted it again, so you won't miss it. I notice your guys' results haven't been replicated.

In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a review on voter ID laws. Among the 10 studies it looked at, the results were mixed — five found no significant effect on turnout, one found increased turnout, and four found decreased turnout (between 1 and 4 percentage points). The GAO’s own study, looking at the effects of voter ID in Kansas and Tennessee, indicated that the laws may have decreased turnout by a few percentage points, with larger effects among younger, black, and newer potential voters.

Some caution is still warranted with these research reviews: Even if these laws have very modest effects — a decrease of 1 to 3 percentage points in voter turnout — that could still affect close elections. These kinds of elections are rare, but they can happen, and they can be important. For example, Democrat Heidi Heitkamp beat her Republican opponent, Rick Berg, by fewer than 3,000 votes, out of nearly 320,000, in 2012 to become a US senator for North Dakota.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... y-research
Do you understand the purpose of replication in science?
Perhaps you just missed it the first time, or maybe you don't know what "replication" means. One of those.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #165

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:40 am
Purple Knight wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:20 pmJust give minorities 1.015 votes apiece and have the stricter laws.
Why not just stop trying to rig elections by excluding minority voters? That would work.
And why not just end Affirmative Action and stop discriminating? Because sometimes, compensatory measures work fine, are fair, and are good solutions for everyone. Your argument is stop all interference, and that's not going to work because wherever conservatives have the control, they're going to attempt shenanigans. If they can't block these votes from the polls they'll just do something else. The beauty of compensatory measures is that they can be implemented nationally, and compensate at levels sufficient to counterbalance conservative shenanigans at the levels these behaviours actually occur.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #166

Post by The Barbarian »

Why not just stop trying to rig elections by excluding minority voters? That would work.
Purple Knight wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:48 pm And why not just end Affirmative Action and stop discriminating?
You think they have affirmative action for voting? Or is this not really about voting for you?
Because sometimes, compensatory measures work fine, are fair, and are good solutions for everyone.
Assuring that all qualified votes get to vote, seems like a more direct and constitutional solution. Why not just do that?

[quoteYour argument is stop all interference, and that's not going to work because wherever conservatives have the control, they're going to attempt shenanigans. If they can't block these votes from the polls they'll just do something else.[/quote]

You think Ronald Reagan would have tolerated the kind of corruption we see going on in Georgia? If he was president today, he'd be pulling Kemp out of his office by his ear. These people aren't conservatives; they are merely racists, of the sort Reagan repeatedly condemned. There are still some conservative groups, but the republican party is not one of them.
The beauty of compensatory measures is that they can be implemented nationally, and compensate at levels sufficient to counterbalance conservative shenanigans at the levels these behaviours actually occur.
The beauty of just doing it legally means everyone gets the same vote, as democracy requires.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #167

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:49 am The study is confirmed by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office:

States that have toughened voter identification laws have experienced steeper drops in election turnout than those that have not, including disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, according to a nonpartisan congressional study [text, PDF] released on Wednesday by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website]. By June of this year, 33 states had enacted voter photo ID laws to reduce fraud. The GAO report compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee, two states which strengthened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections, to voting in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine, which did not change their ID requirements. The report concluded that reductions in voter turnout were about two percent greater in Kansas, and from two to three percent greater in Tennessee than they were in the four other states examined. According to the report, “GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements.” The report said that reduced voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those aged 44 to 53 and that the drop was also more pronounced among black voters than white, Hispanic or Asian voters. The GAO also determined that, in at least one state, an estimated 85 percent of white registered voters and 81 percent of African-American registered voters had a valid ID for voting purposes. The study found that the costs to obtain certain forms of photo IDs vary by state and range from $14.50 to $58.50.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2014/10/con ... y-turnout/
The GAO study that you're referring to is the same one I posted in post #156. You dismissed it in post #157, at the end of that post. So why does that GAO study count as a replication of Dr. Hajnal's study when YOU refer to it but it doesn't when I refer to it?

Do you see the problem here?

It gets worse for you when you don't consider that repeating a study alone is not what bolsters validity of any one study, but it's also making sure that the RESULTS are the same. The validity of your study is not automatically bolstered when the replications show inconsistent results than the original study. In fact, had you read the GAO study, you would've realized that the inconsistent results and I'll quote the part of your post that shows that below:

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:49 am
Agnosticboy wrote:Is your study replicated by anyone else?
Yep. Posted it again, so you won't miss it. I notice your guys' results haven't been replicated.

In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a review on voter ID laws. Among the 10 studies it looked at, the results were mixed — five found no significant effect on turnout, one found increased turnout, and four found decreased turnout (between 1 and 4 percentage points). The GAO’s own study, looking at the effects of voter ID in Kansas and Tennessee, indicated that the laws may have decreased turnout by a few percentage points, with larger effects among younger, black, and newer potential voters.

Some caution is still warranted with these research reviews: Even if these laws have very modest effects — a decrease of 1 to 3 percentage points in voter turnout — that could still affect close elections. These kinds of elections are rare, but they can happen, and they can be important. For example, Democrat Heidi Heitkamp beat her Republican opponent, Rick Berg, by fewer than 3,000 votes, out of nearly 320,000, in 2012 to become a US senator for North Dakota.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... y-research
You quoted a study, but did you notice these words,
"In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a review on voter ID laws. Among the 10 studies it looked at, the results were mixedfive found no significant effect on turnout, one found increased turnout, and four found decreased turnout (between 1 and 4 percentage points)."


Showing replications that do NOT show the same results of Dr. Hajnal's study doesn't help your case about voter ID.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #168

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:49 am The study is confirmed by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office:

States that have toughened voter identification laws have experienced steeper drops in election turnout than those that have not, including disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, according to a nonpartisan congressional study [text, PDF] released on Wednesday by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website]. By June of this year, 33 states had enacted voter photo ID laws to reduce fraud. The GAO report compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee, two states which strengthened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections, to voting in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine, which did not change their ID requirements. The report concluded that reductions in voter turnout were about two percent greater in Kansas, and from two to three percent greater in Tennessee than they were in the four other states examined. According to the report, “GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements.” The report said that reduced voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those aged 44 to 53 and that the drop was also more pronounced among black voters than white, Hispanic or Asian voters. The GAO also determined that, in at least one state, an estimated 85 percent of white registered voters and 81 percent of African-American registered voters had a valid ID for voting purposes. The study found that the costs to obtain certain forms of photo IDs vary by state and range from $14.50 to $58.50.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2014/10/con ... y-turnout/
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:50 pm The GAO study that you're referring to is the same one I posted in post #156.
Yes. But as you see, it actually debunks your claim. Turns out, voter ID laws do suppress voting, particularly for the young and for minorities, which is why republicans make those laws.

Here we are, finding that it says exactly the opposite of what you said it did.
Do you see the problem here?
I think everyone sees the problem here.

It gets worse for you when you don't consider that repeating a study is not validated only when the results are identical, but but when the effect is the same. The validity of these studies is that they show the same things happening. In fact, had you read the GAO study more carefully, you would've realized that it undercuts your claims. It says:

States that have toughened voter identification laws have experienced steeper drops in election turnout than those that have not, including disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, according to a nonpartisan congressional study [text, PDF] released on Wednesday by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website].

You quoted a study, but did you notice that the studies cited by the GAO did not consider subgroups of voters, so they didn't measure what you claimed they did:
"In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a review on voter ID laws. Among the 10 studies it looked at, the results were mixedfive found no significant effect on turnout, one found increased turnout, and four found decreased turnout (between 1 and 4 percentage points)."

Which is why the GAO took a look at that question. And as you learned, that study confirmed the earlier study that actually looked at the effect of such laws on minority turnout.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #169

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:05 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:50 pm The GAO study that you're referring to is the same one I posted in post #156.
Yes. But as you see, it actually debunks your claim. Turns out, voter ID laws do suppress voting, particularly for the young and for minorities, which is why republicans make those laws.
How do the studies debunk my claim when the results are "mixed"? You can't draw any definitive conclusions off of "mixed" results.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:05 pmHere we are, finding that it says exactly the opposite of what you said it did.
Only if you go by the studies that agree with you and IGNORE the ones that don't. That's very biased to say the least and certainly not something I can base any definitive conclusion on.

Also, I asked you for replication of Dr. Hajnal's study. The GAO review was published in the year 2015 (]source), whereas Dr. Hajnal's study was not published until April 2017 (here). The REPLICATION of Dr. Hajnal's study was done in 2018 which you can gather here). And that replication showed results that were CONTRARY to Dr. Hajnal's conclusions.


So not only is there a problem when it comes to your standard of accepting a study (it's only valid when you post it), but there's also a problem about how a 2014 Gao review could serve as a replication for a study that took place two years LATER.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #170

Post by The Barbarian »

Yes. But as you see, it actually debunks your claim. Turns out, voter ID laws do suppress voting, particularly for the young and for minorities, which is why republicans make those laws.[/quote]
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:34 pmHow do the studies debunk my claim
Like this:
The study is confirmed by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office:

States that have toughened voter identification laws have experienced steeper drops in election turnout than those that have not, including disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, according to a nonpartisan congressional study [text, PDF] released on Wednesday by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website]. By June of this year, 33 states had enacted voter photo ID laws to reduce fraud. The GAO report compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee, two states which strengthened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections, to voting in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine, which did not change their ID requirements. The report concluded that reductions in voter turnout were about two percent greater in Kansas, and from two to three percent greater in Tennessee than they were in the four other states examined. According to the report, “GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements.” The report said that reduced voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those aged 44 to 53 and that the drop was also more pronounced among black voters than white, Hispanic or Asian voters. The GAO also determined that, in at least one state, an estimated 85 percent of white registered voters and 81 percent of African-American registered voters had a valid ID for voting purposes. The study found that the costs to obtain certain forms of photo IDs vary by state and range from $14.50 to $58.50.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2014/10/con ... y-turnout/
when the results are "mixed"?
The GAO pointed out that overall voting sometimes goes down and sometimes isn't changed and sometimes goes up, when age and ethnicity isn't considered.

So they took a look at that and their own study that did look at those factors, as Dr. Hajnal's study did, came up with the same results. Minority voting declined and so did voting by younger citizens. Which, as you know, was the intent of such laws. The GAO study replicated the results from Dr. Hajnal's study.
You can't draw any definitive conclusions off of "mixed" results.
But as you you now realize, when the study focuses on voting by younger citizens or minoriity groups, there is a definitive result that shows ID laws do exactly what the republicans want them to do: reduce the number of minority voters.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:05 pmHere we are, finding that it says exactly the opposite of what you said it did.
Only if you go by the studies that agree with you and IGNORE the ones that don't.
No. The GAO study, as you now realize confirmed Dr. Hajnal's study. See the summary above. You're still confusing the GAO study with their summary of other studies that didn't focus on minority voting.
Also, I asked you for replication of Dr. Hajnal's study.
As you know, the GAO study found that voter ID laws do reduce voting by minorities (and younger citizens). Which means they work as republicans intended. It turns out, that Dr. Hajnal found the same things. Which means the only two studies that actually looked at the effects of voter ID laws on minority voting, found the same results. Sounds like a pretty good confirmation to me. Do you have even one study on that issue that contradicts these two?
And that replication showed results that were CONTRARY to Dr. Hajnal's conclusions.
Well. let's take a look at what the GAO study said...
States that have toughened voter identification laws have experienced steeper drops in election turnout than those that have not, including disproportionate falloffs among black and younger voters, according to a nonpartisan congressional study [text, PDF] released on Wednesday by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) [official website]. By June of this year, 33 states had enacted voter photo ID laws to reduce fraud. The GAO report compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee, two states which strengthened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections, to voting in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine, which did not change their ID requirements. The report concluded that reductions in voter turnout were about two percent greater in Kansas, and from two to three percent greater in Tennessee than they were in the four other states examined. According to the report, “GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements.” The report said that reduced voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those aged 44 to 53 and that the drop was also more pronounced among black voters than white, Hispanic or Asian voters. The GAO also determined that, in at least one state, an estimated 85 percent of white registered voters and 81 percent of African-American registered voters had a valid ID for voting purposes. The study found that the costs to obtain certain forms of photo IDs vary by state and range from $14.50 to $58.50.

Pretty much what Dr. Hajnal found, isn't it?

So not only is the GAO report a confirmation of the Hajnal study, contradicting your claims about what it said (you only accept the parts that you liked, i.e. what the GAO said about other studies that did not address the issue of minority voting), but it also shows that the same laws reduce voting by younger people. Both of which, as you know, is the intent of the republican party. ID laws work pretty much as they were designed to do; reduce minority voting.

Perhaps you're still confusing the GAO report, with their summary of other reports that didn't specifically address minority voting. Is that the problem?

Post Reply