Trump: Obama Must Release Birth Certificate

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkdog said:
Color me most skeptical. I'm a little surprised that Nate Silver would run with this, although to be fair, he did express some reservations. However, he goes as far as to call the process "objective". I have to wonder how they judged each bill's "liberalness" or "conservativeness". How did they go about assigning weightings to each bill? Surely they wouldn't count a small cigarette tax increase as much as an entire reworking of the health care sector, or at least I would hope.

One could try all day to be objective on something so subjective and slippery, but at the end of the day, it's just six guys sitting around making these inherently subjective decisions. I would bet my whole paycheck that you could get several groups of six people to do the same thing and none of them would replicate the results on this chart.
Click to expand...


Skeptical is an understatement. Would love to see what they base it on. The o might be to the right of Carter barely. But Kennedy and Clinton? I don't see it.
 
Birth Certificate issue

Well I am going to try to stick to the original thread..laughing..I think in general Trump is an ass. He has made money and lost money..he really is laughable...but then I remember people laughing at the thought of Ronald Reagan (did I spell that right) running..they all said "he's an actor"..yeah well. we all saw what happened. Then we ended up with his last 2 years in office making decisions while suffering on-coming and finally full Alzhiemers, while his wife was consulting a psyic to help her make decisions..geez..
I gotta say I have no respect for Trump, he is wearing a hairpiece, And I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama left his freak flag fly and started sporting a small "fro"? laughing....Since when, like it or not have we allowed
peple like Trump to demand anything from a President of the USA. Trump may have money, although, there are some stories circulating that he is playing the "rob peter to pay paul game". Now he's questioning how Obama for into harvard..come on....perhaps the same way a whole lot of ppl do...
contributions in their name, along with alumni backing. I have seen on one of the sunday head to head talk shows that Obama held a steady 4.0 his last year at harvard. Money can buy almost anything in this country sadly, except perhaps ..oh wait geez it can buy anything..laughing. so sad. Midnight
 
rockin'robin said:
I've seen pixs of Trump in the past, and he had very little hair, wasn't bald or anything, but basically sort of like "flat hair". ...Now I'm seening all this "bushy" hair...Could be a hair piece or something he's wearing? Or he got his hairdresser to "tease" it...with all that moolah, at lease he could get a decent haircut. :giggle:
Click to expand...

Trump needs new wig so badly.
wig_brown_lloyd.jpg
 
rockin'robin said:
I've seen pixs of Trump in the past, and he had very little hair, wasn't bald or anything, but basically sort of like "flat hair". ...Now I'm seening all this "bushy" hair...Could be a hair piece or something he's wearing? Or he got his hairdresser to "tease" it...with all that moolah, at lease he could get a decent haircut. :giggle:
Click to expand...

:lol: yep.
 
MidnightSun said:
Well I am going to try to stick to the original thread..laughing..I think in general Trump is an ass. He has made money and lost money..he really is laughable...but then I remember people laughing at the thought of Ronald Reagan (did I spell that right) running..they all said "he's an actor"..yeah well. we all saw what happened. Then we ended up with his last 2 years in office making decisions while suffering on-coming and finally full Alzhiemers, while his wife was consulting a psyic to help her make decisions..geez..
I gotta say I have no respect for Trump, he is wearing a hairpiece, And I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama left his freak flag fly and started sporting a small "fro"? laughing....Since when, like it or not have we allowed
peple like Trump to demand anything from a President of the USA. Trump may have money, although, there are some stories circulating that he is playing the "rob peter to pay paul game". Now he's questioning how Obama for into harvard..come on....perhaps the same way a whole lot of ppl do...
contributions in their name, along with alumni backing. I have seen on one of the sunday head to head talk shows that Obama held a steady 4.0 his last year at harvard. Money can buy almost anything in this country sadly, except perhaps ..oh wait geez it can buy anything..laughing. so sad. Midnight
Click to expand...

:hmm: I think Meg Whitman might want to have a word with you. If I'm not mistaken she spent at least 120 millions of money for her campaign and still lost to Jerry Brown in CA last year. I think Jerry only spent 40 million to get elected.
 
StSapphire said:
The fact that Nate does reference them (several times in the past, as well) lends weight to the process, to me - he's been very good, historically, about weighing the objectivity of sources and determining whether they're biased in any manner.
Click to expand...
Appeal to authority doesn't really work for me. Someone with credibility and authority may get my attention more than an average Joe, but I'm not going to pretend there are no holes when there are clearly holes.

StSapphire said:
As for the process of using the DW-NOMINATE scores, like you said, he does express some reservations, and it's very likely that you could get other political scientists to re-rank everyone with slightly different categories, but the primary benefit of such a system is that it is open - you can see how was made, and more to the point, it's a stable system. It might not with 100% certainty tell you "Oh yes, Bush Jr. was definitely twice as conservative as Obama is liberal" but it can tell you "Obama isn't significantly more liberal than past Democratic presidents."
Click to expand...
I'm glad it's open and all, but that doesn't change the subjective nature of the topic they're studying. I think if you had several groups doing this, they would agree that the Republican presidents fall on the right side and the Democrat presidents fall on the left side. Other than that, I think the results would be all over the place.

Besides, if this is supposed to be a rough estimate, why use three significant figures? Why not use a scale of 1 to 10 or even a scale of 1 to 5?
 
rockin'robin said:
I've seen pixs of Trump in the past, and he had very little hair, wasn't bald or anything, but basically sort of like "flat hair". ...Now I'm seening all this "bushy" hair...Could be a hair piece or something he's wearing? Or he got his hairdresser to "tease" it...with all that moolah, at lease he could get a decent haircut. :giggle:
Click to expand...

Nope, he is doing a serious comb over. Growing the hair in back really long, and then combing it over the bald area, and spraying it so stiff that he can turn his head, but his hair stays in the same place, lol.
 
Hard to believe Trump has visions flying in Hair Force One. :roll:
 
darkdog said:
Appeal to authority doesn't really work for me. Someone with credibility and authority may get my attention more than an average Joe, but I'm not going to pretend there are no holes when there are clearly holes.
Click to expand...

Right, I wasn't saying it shouldn't be questioned just cause Smart Person A said "It's awesome!" Just pointing out that I (personally) am acknowledging that he understands this stuff better than me, so I yielded to his expertise.

darkdog said:
I'm glad it's open and all, but that doesn't change the subjective nature of the topic they're studying. I think if you had several groups doing this, they would agree that the Republican presidents fall on the right side and the Democrat presidents fall on the left side. Other than that, I think the results would be all over the place.

Besides, if this is supposed to be a rough estimate, why use three significant figures? Why not use a scale of 1 to 10 or even a scale of 1 to 5?
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested in specific issues with their methodology, but you can feel free to disregard the results either way.

And my point was more that while you might have another group that listed Bush at .4 and Obama at .8, assuming they didn't change the data itself, they most likely would still have similar shifts in overall patterns and the like. It's still all just analyzing objective data.

And I'm not sure where you got the concept that it was a "rough estimate" - they used three significant digits because that's how much accuracy their model gave them.

Is your issue with the results they found, or simply the fact that they tried to assign a numeric value to a somewhat nebulous concept?
 
226350_953682670308_18724775_45069343_5387409_n.jpg


I love this!!

Edit: Adding more detail for those who are blind/have low vision, it's a picture of Obama in kick ass sunglasses and a suit with a tie. He points with a finger to a person off screen with a big smile on his face. His tie is flying in the air, implying that he did the swagger walk (it could be just the wind, but that isn't as fun). There is a caption that says "Sorry it took so long to get you a copy of my birth certificate, I was too busy killing Osama Bin Laden."
 
Daredevel7 said:
226350_953682670308_18724775_45069343_5387409_n.jpg


I love this!!

Edit: Adding more detail for those who are blind/have low vision, it's a picture of Obama in kick ass sunglasses and a suit with a tie. He points with a finger to a person off screen with a big smile on his face. His tie is flying in the air, implying that he did the swagger walk (it could be just the wind, but that isn't as fun). There is a caption that says "Sorry it took so long to get you a copy of my birth certificate, I was too busy killing Osama Bin Laden."
Click to expand...

It also took him 3 days to contact his Legacy Czar to make sure this was a good move.
 
Daredevel7 said:
226350_953682670308_18724775_45069343_5387409_n.jpg


I love this!!

Edit: Adding more detail for those who are blind/have low vision, it's a picture of Obama in kick ass sunglasses and a suit with a tie. He points with a finger to a person off screen with a big smile on his face. His tie is flying in the air, implying that he did the swagger walk (it could be just the wind, but that isn't as fun). There is a caption that says "Sorry it took so long to get you a copy of my birth certificate, I was too busy killing Osama Bin Laden."
Click to expand...

Great one, DD!:laugh2:
 
It turned out that Bid Laden was holding Obama's birth certificate hostage. Trump will be happy to get it now.
 
shel90 said:
It turned out that Bid Laden was holding Obama's birth certificate hostage. Trump will be happy to get it now.
Click to expand...
It turns out that Bin Laden and Obama are the same person. They are both tall, just that Obama is the somewhat clean shaven version. They decided to kill off the Bin Laden character.
 
StSapphire said:
Right, I wasn't saying it shouldn't be questioned just cause Smart Person A said "It's awesome!" Just pointing out that I (personally) am acknowledging that he understands this stuff better than me, so I yielded to his expertise.

I'd be more interested in specific issues with their methodology, but you can feel free to disregard the results either way.

And my point was more that while you might have another group that listed Bush at .4 and Obama at .8, assuming they didn't change the data itself, they most likely would still have similar shifts in overall patterns and the like. It's still all just analyzing objective data.

And I'm not sure where you got the concept that it was a "rough estimate" - they used three significant digits because that's how much accuracy their model gave them.

Is your issue with the results they found, or simply the fact that they tried to assign a numeric value to a somewhat nebulous concept?
Click to expand...
Sorry for being slow to reply. It's been a bit busy around here. When I talked about it being a rough estimate, I was responding to you saying...
It might not with 100% certainty tell you "Oh yes, Bush Jr. was definitely twice as conservative as Obama is liberal" but it can tell you "Obama isn't significantly more liberal than past Democratic presidents."
Click to expand...
I don't object to them using numbers. I object to them using three significant figures because it implies an impossible level of precision for a subjective concept that's not really measurable.

I didn't read in detail about their methodology, but from what I did read, I think it was something like this. Take, say, the Medicare part D bill. Let's say they assign a value for its ideology where -1 is totally liberal and +1 is totally conservative. I might pick -.4. Others may pick differently. Then, they would have to pick a weighting factor based on the impact of the bill. Let's say they chose on a scale of 0 to 1 where 0 has no impact and 1 has huge earth-shaking impact. Adding an entitlement with a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars is pretty big, so I might pick 0.5. Multiply the two together and you get 0.2. Add those up for each bill, then divide by the sum of all the weighting factors, and you have a number for how conservative or liberal the guy is.

Here's the problem. To get final numbers that precise, they would have to use three significant figures for each measurement. Instead of -.4 for the Medicare part D bill, they might pick -.427. Then for the weighting factor, they might pick .523. That's unrealistically precise, especially when picking just -.4 and .5 would generate a lot of disagreement.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top