Impeach Trump!

[Ibanez]

Wow. The Reps are just lying now. They’ve named all the witnesses that were interviewed and said they didn’t get to cross examine.


Then who were those Republicans questioning Hill, Sondland, Vindman, et al...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Bottom line...we don’t need greater representation, we need better representation.

I mean you can disagree, but it's not something I'm making up. I don't know the exact equations...I'm sure I can pop out the old statistics book...but the math isn't on your side when the sample size stays the same while the range and quantity increases. I'm sure people in manufacturing, or data analysis will agree.

So we don't need better representation?

[∞∞∞]

I mean you can disagree, but it's not something I'm making up. I don't know the exact equations...I'm sure I can pop out the old statistics book...but the math isn't on your side when the sample size stays the same while the range and quantity increases. I'm sure people in manufacturing, or data analysis will agree.

So we don't need better representation?

Better representation is done with more representation.

It's math. At some point, you can't accurately represent a data set of X numbers with Y samples.

[kalm]

Bottom line...we don’t need greater representation, we need better representation.

I mean you can disagree, but it's not something I'm making up. I don't know the exact equations...I'm sure I can pop out the old statistics book...but the math isn't on your side when the sample size stays the same while the range and quantity increases. I'm sure people in manufacturing, or data analysis will agree.

That’s part of the problem (spoken like a true engineer)...relying on people in manufacturing and data analysis to solve political problems.

In your defense...I don’t think people realize the significance of 330 million constituents as well as the geography.

There are a ton of disparate wants. A person living in the concrete jungle of the mid-Atlantic might not give a rats ass to the BLM managing stream habitat in Eastern Washington.

We are all short-sighted and live in our own bubbles.

But let’s start with the fact that as of right now, the true constituency of our congress is the monied interests. Fix that first.

[SDHornet]

So we don't need better representation?

Better representation is done with more representation.

It's math. At some point, you can't accurately represent a data set of X numbers with Y samples.

[SDHornet]

Bottom line...we don’t need greater representation, we need better representation.

[93henfan]

51-49

No witnesses.

That's a wrap.

[SDHornet]

51-49

No witnesses.

That's a wrap.

Whomp whomp.

Hey at least this way it'll align with the Dem's talking points during the last impeachment.

[Pwns]

I don't see what purpose witnesses can serve except to drag on what is going to be inevitably an acquittal.

[93henfan]

I don't see what purpose witnesses can serve except to drag on what is going to be inevitably an acquittal.

White House counsel laid that out late this afternoon. They said that if witnesses were to be allowed, they'd cross examine all 17 that the House called as well as all new witnesses the Senate minority called, plus the Bidens.

The trial would go on for months and the same conclusion would be reached. And the Bidens would be eviscerated.

It's better for the country for Congress to be working on other things this year.

[BDKJMU]

Women vote more than men.

Though, really... most people across all demographics don't vote in any high numbers.

Let me put it this way
Women 18 to 35 don't vote

I'm not saying they don't vote more than men in that demographic
but they are almost unanimously liberal where men are more diverse
if they all voted (women 18 to 35) we'd never have anything other than a liberal in office

Wrong on women 18-35 don’t vote. Women 18-35 DO vote. The majority of them vote in POTUS elections.

Among younger citizens (18-64), a higher proportion of women than men voted in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000 and 1996; the pattern is reversed among older voters.

2016 election:
-46% of eligible women 18-24 (6.2 million) reported voting. That compares to only 40% of men.
-59.7% of eligible women 25-44 reported voting. That compares to only 53% of men.
Page 2:
http://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/f ... erdiff.pdf

Wrong on women 18-35 being ‘Almost unanimously liberal’. Unanimous = 100%, so ‘almost unanimously’ would be almost 100%. According to Pew, 23% of millenial women 2017 were conk/leaned conk, and 70% were donk/leaned donk. 70% isn’t even close to ‘almost unanimous’. And not all of those 70% are liberal.
https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20 ... ic-groups/

[CID1990]

For Christ's sake, you're a broken record. Are you doing anything to fix it? Are you putting your money and efforts into people and policies that have a chance of creating change?

Of course. My name is in the FEC donations database; and I'll be volunteering again in the 2020 election.

The pure crap of of the Constitution? Why? Because you didn't get your way? B/c your party screwed up in 2016? Democrats are as much to blame for Trump as the Republicans. IT was democrats that were so disgusted by Clinton that they those the lesser of two evils was TRUMP.

The Constitution is antiquated garbage. Let's not forget that Clinton won the majority of votes, which in most free elections, means she would win the one branch which represents all people. I know I know, "we're a Republic" 'cause we don't actually give a sh*t about solid democratic concepts.

It's not our constitution that's the problem. That's a weak argument. It's the caliber of our candidates and what we've allowed our country to become.

I can maybe contend that it's less the design that's the issue than it's the fact that legislators over the years have failed to keep the Constitution up-to-date. Instead we rely on a labyrinth of SCOTUS rulings and precedents. But on the other hand, designing a system which makes amendments extremely difficult is in itself a serious design flaw.

You want hope and change? Run, nominate and elect a Democrat that actually stands a chance. :coffee

The fact that you can run someone who wins the majority of votes and still loses is not conducive to good national representation. Additionally studies show that throughout the world, when people select candidates who they think can win, instead of selecting candidates they're genuinely excited about in the primary, that primary winner will often lose the general election.

Bless your heart

We were intentionally designed as a republic because the founders actually saw pure democracies as prone to dissolution and eventual threats to liberty

“Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

So we don't need better representation?

Better representation is done with more representation.

It's math. At some point, you can't accurately represent a data set of X numbers with Y samples.

Is more representation really better representation if the governing body becomes so large and unwieldy that it accomplishes little to nothing of substance or if succumbs to too much outside influence or mob rule?

It's obvious that you don't like our form of government so why do you stay? You seem to think Western European nations have more representative government and your preference does appear to be a parliamentarian approach so why don't you move to France, Germany, etc.?

As the old saying goes ...

"Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya"

[Skjellyfetti]

Wrong on women 18-35 being ‘Almost unanimously liberal’. Unanimous = 100%, so ‘almost unanimously’ would be almost 100%. According to Pew, 23% of millenial women 2017 were conk/leaned conk, and 70% were donk/leaned donk. 70% isn’t even close to ‘almost unanimous’. And not all of those 70% are liberal.
https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20 ... ic-groups/

Goddamn, BDK

[kalm]

Better representation is done with more representation.

It's math. At some point, you can't accurately represent a data set of X numbers with Y samples.

Is more representation really better representation if the governing body becomes so large and unwieldy that it accomplishes little to nothing of substance or if succumbs to too much outside influence or mob rule?

It's obvious that you don't like our form of government so why do you stay? You seem to think Western European nations have more representative government and your preference does appear to be a parliamentarian approach so why don't you move to France, Germany, etc.?

As the old saying goes ...

"Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya"

Criticism of government is a healthy thing. Change is inevitable for good or bad. Why not stay and try to improve the system?

[CID1990]

Tripz should move to New Hampshire. The NH house of representatives has 400 members, in a state with fewer than 1.4 million residents. That’s closer to the town meeting style of governance that he seems to prefer.

And Tripz hasn’t responded to my challenge to draft a constitution that’s better than ours. I’m sure he could draw from any number of international examples. Maybe he could start with Yemen’s and mark it up.

Nigeria has a noble one

They are a direct democracy too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Tripz should move to New Hampshire. The NH house of representatives has 400 members, in a state with fewer than 1.4 million residents. That’s closer to the town meeting style of governance that he seems to prefer.

And Tripz hasn’t responded to my challenge to draft a constitution that’s better than ours. I’m sure he could draw from any number of international examples. Maybe he could start with Yemen’s and mark it up.

Yes, that's the effort I'm going to take...drafting a Constitution so I can post it here.

A good Constitution is also written by the demographics it represents, not just one white man, or 39.

Yes please do that so we can demonstrate the ratification process to you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Yes, that's the effort I'm going to take...drafting a Constitution so I can post it here.

A good Constitution is also written by the demographics it represents, not just one white man, or 39.

By your strained logic, you’d advocate rewriting the constitution every time the census unearthed a “demographic” that hadn’t previously moved the needle. It would be awful if the Uzbek perspective was ignored.

It’s easy to take pot shots at the most successful foundational document in human history by calling it “garbage.” It’s quite another to put forward an intellectually coherent argument for a better product. Your approach is not only juvenile, but lazy.

Thailand, another bastion of direct democracy, rewrites its constitution every time a new parliament is seated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CitadelGrad]

Can they re-open impeachment proceedings in the house based on new evidence? I assume they can file new articles and proceedings right up to the election.

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

In the off chance it were to happen, enter Bloomberg as a 3rd party candidate capitalizing on voter fatigue with both parties.

That'd be suicide. The Democrats should've slow-walked this. They should've gone after Bolton and Mulvaney and gotten them on the record.

All so the Republicans can acquit.

I'm actually more worried about the precedent that Dershowtiz' argument will set. IF you think having a foreign government intervene in our election against your opponent is in the best interest of the US then it's perfectly fine. That's some dangerous precedent setting there, IMO.

I don't believe Dershowitz defended the Dems' attempts to get dirt on Trump from Ukraine, or pay for a dossier full of information collected from Russia and written by a former British intelligence officer.

Or is that not what you are talking about?

[CitadelGrad]

Wow. The Reps are just lying now. They’ve named all the witnesses that were interviewed and said they didn’t get to cross examine.


Then who were those Republicans questioning Hill, Sondland, Vindman, et al...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were 17 witnesses. The GOP was unable to depose or cross examine 11 of them, if my recollection is correct.

Also, Schiff refused to allow witnesses called by the GOP.

[JohnStOnge]

Bottom line...we don’t need greater representation, we need better representation.

I mean you can disagree, but it's not something I'm making up. I don't know the exact equations...I'm sure I can pop out the old statistics book...but the math isn't on your side when the sample size stays the same while the range and quantity increases. I'm sure people in manufacturing, or data analysis will agree.

I don't know what you two guys were talking about but, actually, there is a point at which the sample size gives you the same "precision" (as a pratical matter) regardless of how much bigger the population gets.

In survey statistics there is a thing called the "finite population correction. You can read about it here: https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/def ... rection-31.

Let's say your sample size is 1000 and you're doing a survey to estimate the percent in a population of voters. If you assume 50% is the percent (proportion 0.5) the standard error if you assume infinite population is 0.015811388 (1.58%). Suppose the sample comes from a population of 1,000,000 voters. The finite population correction is 0.999000999 so the standard error goes to 0.015795593. If it goes to 100,000,000 voters the finite population correction is 0.99999001 and the standard error is 0.01581123.

So you can see that if you've got a sample size of 1000 you get practically the same standard error whether it's 1,000,0000 or 100,000,000 or infinity. As long as the population size is way bigger than the sample size a given sample size is about as good. The rule of thumb in a survey sampling class I took is that you reach that point when the sample size is <10% of the population size. The linked article says 5%.

But, for example, a sample size of 1000 is essentially just as good for a population of a billion or even infinity as it is for a population of a million or a hundred thousand. Even if the population of 10,000 the standard error for the example above would be 0.014231673.

So really, once the population is large, the "effectiveness" of a given sample size doesn't change much as it gets even larger and larger into infinity.

[JohnStOnge]

I actually produced a table that is used in my realm. It is a table of the sample size necessary to be 95% confident of getting at least one defective article if 20% of the articles are defective. The population size is the number of articles you're sampling from. At first when the population sizes are small the sample sizes necessary increase as the population sizes increase. But a point is reached where that stops.

When the population is 1 through 5 the sample size is the population size. You have to look at every item. When it's 6 and 7 the sample size is 5. At 50 items in the population the sample size is 12. At 100 items in the population the sample size is 13.

But the necessary sample size maxes out at at 14 when the number of items in the population reaches 278. From that point on you are about 95% confident of detecting a 20% defect level with a sample of 14 whether it's 279, 1,000,000, or infinity.

At 278 the confidence level with a sample size of 14 is 95.8%. At infinity it's 95.6%. That's an illustration of the fact that once the population size gets large enough a given sample size is, as a practical matter, just as good even if the population size gets larger and larger on into infinity.

[AZGrizFan]

Let me sum up JSO’s treatise for you, trip: Your “math” example is about as stupid and irrelevant as your take on the quality of our system of government.

[∞∞∞]

I mean you can disagree, but it's not something I'm making up. I don't know the exact equations...I'm sure I can pop out the old statistics book...but the math isn't on your side when the sample size stays the same while the range and quantity increases. I'm sure people in manufacturing, or data analysis will agree.

I don't know what you two guys were talking about but, actually, there is a point at which the sample size gives you the same "precision" (as a pratical matter) regardless of how much bigger the population gets.

In survey statistics there is a thing called the "finite population correction. You can read about it here: https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/def ... rection-31.

Let's say your sample size is 1000 and you're doing a survey to estimate the percent in a population of voters. If you assume 50% is the percent (proportion 0.5) the standard error if you assume infinite population is 0.015811388 (1.58%). Suppose the sample comes from a population of 1,000,000 voters. The finite population correction is 0.999000999 so the standard error goes to 0.015795593. If it goes to 100,000,000 voters the finite population correction is 0.99999001 and the standard error is 0.01581123.

So you can see that if you've got a sample size of 1000 you get practically the same standard error whether it's 1,000,0000 or 100,000,000 or infinity. As long as the population size is way bigger than the sample size a given sample size is about as good. The rule of thumb in a survey sampling class I took is that you reach that point when the sample size is <10% of the population size. The linked article says 5%.

But, for example, a sample size of 1000 is essentially just as good for a population of a billion or even infinity as it is for a population of a million or a hundred thousand. Even if the population of 10,000 the standard error for the example above would be 0.014231673.

So really, once the population is large, the "effectiveness" of a given sample size doesn't change much as it gets even larger and larger into infinity.

I agree that effectiveness isn't linear and after a certain point, the confidence level of your data is pretty high no matter the number (but will still be higher the larger the sample is, however only logarithmically). But isn't "finite population control" used as a factor in the sample size equation? As, if you want your effectiveness to be 90% (or whatever), you'd first do the equation above (and maybe another one or two) and then plug the results into the equation to get the sample size necessary to get that 90% confidence?

I could certainly be remembering wrong; it's been a million years since I took statistics. Ultimately my question is: does 435 reps accurately represent the US population with high confidence?

You seem to have a passion with this, so I trust your answer.

[Skjellyfetti]

Also, Schiff refused to allow witnesses called by the GOP.

False. Volker, Hale, and Morrison were on the GOP witness list.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-h ... t-hearings