Author Topic: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)  (Read 929031 times)

LKB and 34 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16680 on: August 17, 2019, 11:43:50 PM »
Is he interested in Greenland because of climate change? Is this him accidentally admitting climate change is real?

Offline BasilValentine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 985
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16681 on: August 18, 2019, 12:20:34 PM »
Is he interested in Greenland because of climate change? Is this him accidentally admitting climate change is real?

Trump knows climate change is real, despite the public act, because his pal Vlad told him so. Both have in mind the exploitation of fossil fuel resources in the arctic. Given recent events like Oleg Deripaska's Rusal receiving a hundreds of millions deal to open an aluminum plant in Kentucky, presumably in return for having helped Trump get elected,* Trump would likely find creative ways to reward his Russian friends when exploration and development get going in Greenland.

*Deripaska's suit against Paul Manafort to collect a multi-million dollar debt provided the leverage by which the Russians extracted internal polling data from the RNC. The data was passed from Manafort through Konstantine Kilimnik, in return for which Deripaska forgave Manafort's debt. Moscow Mitch richly earned his new moniker on this one, enriching an election terrorist as payment for his attack on the U.S.   
« Last Edit: August 18, 2019, 06:06:14 PM by BasilValentine »

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16682 on: August 18, 2019, 02:17:45 PM »
Trump confirms he is considering attempt to buy Greenland


"Donald Trump has confirmed he is considering an attempt to buy Greenland for strategic reasons, though he said the idea is “not No1 on the burner”.

Trump’s interest, reported earlier this week, was greeted internationally with widespread hilarity but with indignation in Greenland and Denmark.

The government of the semi-autonomous Danish territory insisted it was not for sale. The Danish prime minister called any discussion of a sale “absurd”.

Nonetheless, on Sunday White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow first confirmed the story in an interview, before Trump spoke to reporters as he left New Jersey to return from vacation to Washington.

Saying the “concept came up” and he was “looking at it”, the man who runs a notoriously leaky White House also questioned how the idea found its way to the press.

Trump sought to tie the idea of a US purchase of the world’s largest island – not including Australia – to his own area of professional expertise, saying it would be “essentially a large real estate deal”.

“Denmark essentially owns it,” he said. “We’re very good allies with Denmark, we protect Denmark like we protect large portions of the world. So the concept came up and I said, ‘Certainly I’d be.’ Strategically it’s interesting and we’d be interested but we’ll talk to them a little bit. It’s not No1 on the burner, I can tell you that.”

Denmark is a member of Nato, a mutual defence organisation frequently criticised by the US president. Trump believes member nations do not pay enough for the privilege of membership alongside the powerful US military.

Such American forces have operated for decades from Thule Air Base in Greenland, the northern-most US base which is part of a global network of radars and sensors for missile warnings and space surveillance.

“Well a lot of things can be done,” Trump said on Sunday. “Essentially it’s a large real estate deal. A lot of things can be done.”

He then claimed without offering evidence that ownership of Greenland was “hurting Denmark very badly because they’re losing almost $700m a year carrying it. So they carry it at a great loss and strategically for the United States it would be very nice and we’re a big ally of Denmark, we protect Denmark and we help Denmark and we will.”

Trump is scheduled to visit Denmark in September, as part of a trip to Europe.

“I’m supposed to be going there,” he said. “We may be going to Denmark but not for this reason at all.”

On Sunday, during a visit to Greenland, Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen told the newspaper Sermitsiaq: “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously.”

In remarks to the Danish broadcaster DR, Frederiksen said: “It’s an absurd discussion, and [Greenland prime minister] Kim Kielsen has of course made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. That’s where the conversation ends.”
« Last Edit: August 18, 2019, 02:20:21 PM by SimonNZ »

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16683 on: August 18, 2019, 04:14:47 PM »
House speaker as US emissary: Pelosi emerges as force abroad

"There’s an American leader whose words resonate on the global stage. Who draws attention in foreign capitals. Who carries a message from the United States by simply arriving.

It’s not just President Donald Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is emerging as an alternative ambassador abroad, an emissary for bedrock democratic values and the promise of stability that some see as diminishing in the Trump era.

As the president heads to the Group of Seven summit in France next week with his “America First” agenda , Pelosi has been quietly engaging the world from another point of view. She is reviving a more traditional American approach to foreign policy, in style and substance, reinforcing long-standing U.S. alliances and commitments to democracy and human rights, at a time when the old order appears to be slipping away.

What’s really important for people to know is, we’re all in this together,” Pelosi told The Associated Press in an interview. “This isn’t about me. It’s about our country and our shared values, to show our strength of who we are and what we believe.”

Since retaking the speaker’s gavel this year, Pelosi has led large congressional delegations abroad: to assure European allies at a Munich security conference; warn Britons of the pitfalls of Brexit; assess the migrant crisis in Central America; and mark the 400th anniversary of the slave trade in Africa with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including the immigrant congresswoman who became the subject of a Trump rally chant, “Send her back!”

Offline Wendell_E

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1070
  • Location: Mobile, AL, USA
  • Currently Listening to:
    mostly opera and chamber music
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16684 on: August 19, 2019, 01:50:43 AM »
I believe the citizens of Greenland are safely white.

If we can believe Wikipedia (I know! I know!) 88% of the population of Greenland is Inuit, 12% Danish.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

Offline geralmar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Location: Michigan
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16685 on: August 19, 2019, 10:31:01 AM »
If we can believe Wikipedia (I know! I know!) 88% of the population of Greenland is Inuit, 12% Danish.

Correction noted.  Thank you.  Maybe someone should tell the President.

Online k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 52039
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, Frescobaldi, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Haydn, Henning
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16686 on: August 19, 2019, 12:28:01 PM »
Correction noted.  Thank you.  Maybe someone should tell the President.

Telling the President ain't much use. He already knows it all, you see.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline drogulus

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 7104
  • Gypsy, 1970
  • Location: Watertown, MA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16687 on: August 19, 2019, 02:50:29 PM »
     Trump is so scared that a recession will doom his reelection chances he is willing to cut taxes for most Americans, the ones who are the backbone of the economy. This confirms again what everyone should understand. Repubs know which taxes to cut to boost the economy. They don't do it because something else matters more, cutting taxes that don't boost the economy. The proposed tax cuts are supposed to be temporary, and because they are payroll taxes these cuts will be. Even now Repubs can't bring themselves to do something positive without taking it back as soon as they can.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Waterfox/56.2.13
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/64.0

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16688 on: August 19, 2019, 06:24:38 PM »
quoting this insanity in its entirety:

Fact check: Trump falsely claims Google 'manipulated' millions of 2016 votes

"In a tweet on Monday, President Donald Trump made a sensational allegation about Google.

"Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought! @JudicialWatch," Trump wrote.

He was referring to a study by psychologist Robert Epstein, which was discussed on Fox Business earlier on Monday.
But Trump did not describe the research correctly. And the research itself has been called into question.

Facts First: Epstein himself says Trump was wrong about his findings. Epstein did find "bias" in Google search results, but he says there is no evidence Google "manipulated" the results to favor Clinton. Also, critics of the study note that there is no definitive link between search results and voting behavior in presidential elections.

First let's address what Epstein says Trump got wrong. Then we'll delve into Epstein's research.

Trump's words and numbers were inaccurate\

Epstein, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, found what he alleges was a pro-Clinton bias in Google's search results.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Epstein said the pro-Clinton bias was "sufficient to have shifted between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes" to Clinton.

There is no basis in Epstein's research for Trump's claim that the alleged bias might have affected "16 million" votes. Epstein did testify in July that big tech companies in general could potentially shift "upwards of 15 million votes" in the 2020 election, but he didn't claim that this happened in 2016.

In the Monday interview, Epstein rejected Trump's claim that Google "manipulated" votes in 2016. He said he does not have firm evidence even that Google intentionally manipulated its search algorithm or results, let alone votes themselves.

"I don't have any evidence that Google manipulated anything. I just have evidence that there was this bias -- highly statistically significantly bias," he said.

Google said Epstein was incorrect in his claims of bias.

"This researcher's inaccurate claim has been debunked since it was made in 2016. As we stated then, we have never re-ranked or altered search results to manipulate political sentiment. Our goal is to always provide people with access to high quality, relevant information for their queries, without regard to political viewpoint," the company said in an email.
(An aside: Judicial Watch, a conservative legal activist group that is active on elections issues, was not involved in Epstein's research. The group told CNN that it believed Trump tagged it in the tweet to encourage it to look into the allegations.)

How Epstein determined there was bias

Epstein is senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and a former editor in chief of Psychology Today magazine. He said he voted for Clinton and is not a Trump supporter today.

For this study, he had 95 people from 24 states, including 21 self-described undecided voters, conduct election-related searches using search engines Google, Yahoo and Bing. Then he had another group of Americans, hired through the crowdsourcing website Amazon Mechanical Turk, use a point scale to rate the supposed bias of the articles found on the first page of the search results.

An extremely pro-Trump article would get a minus-5, while an extremely pro-Clinton article would get a plus-5.

Using this method, he found that Google's results were reliably more pro-Clinton, in both red states and blue states, than Yahoo or Bing results. Then, using his previous research from elections in other countries about how search results can affect voter intentions, he came to a broad estimate of 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes potentially affected by search bias in the US in 2016.

Epstein said he chose to publish his findings on the website Hacker Noon, not in a peer-reviewed journal.

Epstein said he is "suspicious" that Google is deliberately biasing its results, given the Democratic leanings of its employees and the allegations of company "whistleblowers." But he said it is possible the bias comes from the company simply neglecting to fix an unintentionally flawed algorithm.

"I don't even care about the human element. There's a system out there running amok," he said.
Criticism of the data

Other academics have joined Google in criticizing Epstein's methodology and conclusions.

One issue is the quality of news sources.

Google says one of its criteria for ranking news results is how authoritative a source is. Using Epstein's methodology, a search engine whose top results page did not feature an article from a far-right pro-Trump website, such as Breitbart, would be ranked as more biased in favor of Clinton than a search engine that did showcase Breitbart -- even if the first search engine highlighted a deeply informative Washington Post investigation about Trump's past and the second search engine highlighted Breitbart's pro-Trump puff piece.

Epstein emphasized that he is not a Trump fan. But he argued that Google results should not be treating pro-Trump media as second-class "for whatever reason, whatever your excuse."

"I've certainly met people that say Breitbart is a more reliable news source than the New York Times ... there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into these kinds of determinations," he said.

Another issue, other academics say, is that Epstein's study did not establish a link between alleged bias in search results and voter behavior in 2016.

Epstein said he came to the conclusion of bias sufficient to affect 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes based on what he has found in studies of national elections outside the US, including the 2010 Australian prime minister election and a 2014 Indian legislative election.

In other words: Epstein did not test 2016 American voters to see if their Clinton-or-Trump choice had been changed by search results they got. He extrapolated from his previous studies.

In an American presidential election, people tend to know so much about the two leading candidates, and are getting news from so many different sources, that it is not at all clear that search results would affect their preferences the same way they might in other settings where they have less information, said Michael McDonald, a political science professor and elections expert at the University of Florida.

McDonald said it is certainly possible that political results from Google and other search engines have been affected by the unconscious biases of the people who wrote their algorithms. But McDonald said Epstein has failed to establish that any such biases have had anywhere near the magnitude of impact on American presidential voting that Epstein suggests.

"It's just not plausible," McDonald said.

Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at University of California, Los Angeles, and author of the forthcoming book "Beyond the Valley," said Epstein's analysis did not take into account how much a voter might care about a particular subject.

For example, a strongly anti-abortion voter might be more likely to have their vote affected by abortion-related search results than results about another subject. But Epstein's analysis did not distinguish between voters' interest levels in different topics.

And Srinivasan noted that the study did not take into account how people's voting preferences might have been affected by other technological platforms, such as Facebook, which he said was "quite clearly gamed by third parties" in 2016.
"You can't zero in on Google and have Google be your only factor in your analysis to shape one's voting outcomes," he said.

Srinivasan also said that the political value systems of the people who create search algorithms might affect the results.
He said, "Robert and I agree on a lot." But he said Epstein's analysis on search results and voting is overly simplistic."

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16689 on: August 19, 2019, 06:33:07 PM »
more from the "brainwashed" Washington Post:

Move over, Illuminati. The conspiracy against Trump’s economy is massive.

"When Barack Obama was president and the economic statistics were good, then-candidate Donald Trump said they were fake. When Trump became president and inherited the exact same stats, they suddenly became real.

Now that they’re turning south, they’re apparently fake once more.

Trump, aided by his economic brain trust of cranks and sycophants, believes any indicator showing the U.S. economy could be in trouble must be fabricated. It’s all part of an anti-Trump conspiracy, he rants, according to reports in The Post, the Associated Press and the New York Times.

And move over, Illuminati, because this particular conspiracy is massive.

It’s led by the Federal Reserve, Democrats and the media, of course, or so say Trump and his Fox News minions. But it also includes the entire U.S. bond market, which flashed a warning sign last week when the Treasury yield curve inverted (meaning long-term bonds had lower interest rates than short-term ones, which usually predates a downturn).

Also colluding are the many farmers, retailers, manufacturers and economists who have been warning for more than a year that the burden of Trump’s tariffs is mainly borne by Americans, not China or other trading partners, and also that uncertainty over trade tensions can paralyze hiring, investment and purchasing decisions, which we need to keep the economy expanding.

The cabal even transcends borders. Besides Trump’s trade wars, after all, the main risk to the U.S. economy involves contagion from abroad. And right now, nine major economies are either in a recession or on the verge of one. Never fear, though: All nine countries’ statisticians are surely cooking their books to hurt Trump, too.

The White House has reportedly declined to develop contingency plans for a downturn because it doesn’t want to validate this “negative narrative.” This is, in a word, idiotic. As others have analogized, it’s like refusing to buy a fire extinguisher because you’re afraid of feeding a “negative narrative” that you might someday face a fire.

Administration officials decided the best way to deal with recession risk, which they of course aren’t personally worried about, was through a show of force on TV. There, Trump’s economic advisers assured Americans they definitely, certainly, cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die don’t see reason to worry.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s strategy was to deny that the data show Americans are paying higher prices on tariffed goods (though we are) and also that the yield curve had recently inverted (though it did). On that latter point, Navarro said the curve was merely “flat” and therefore doesn’t signal a possible recession. In virtually identical language across interviews, he told audiences that he had authority in this matter because he “didn’t write the book on the yield curve,” he wrote “several books on the efficacy of the yield curve as a leading economic indicator.”

What Navarro failed to mention, though, is that these books say that both inverted and “flat” yield curves are usually signs of impending recession. One such book, from 2006, explicitly mocked business leaders for failing to prepare for the 2001 recession because they had ignored “the ominous progression of the yield curve” that began with the curve’s flattening.

So, yeah, you can add mid-2000s-era Navarro to the list of anti-Trump conspirators, too. 

Trump’s National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow hit the Sunday shows, too. For his part, he bizarrely pretended other troubling economic data (in this case, on consumer sentiment) didn’t exist. He also repeatedly told viewers: “Let’s not be afraid of optimism.”

And look, yes, it would be unhelpful for public officials to go on TV and tell everybody to panic, pull their money out of the market and stuff it under their mattresses. The White House obviously wants to project confidence instead.

But that confidence is convincing only if it’s credible — because, say, the White House has acknowledged how its own trade policies are contributing to recession risk and is committed to reversing them. Or because it has a competent team in place if recession strikes.

Neither is true.

Instead, Kudlow’s call for optimism has a whiff of Peter Pan logic about it: If only we believe in fairies hard enough, we can always save Tinker Bell — even when we’re sending her out into a hailstorm. If you believe, clap your hands; don’t let Tink die!

It’s hard to imagine nervous Americans are really this credulous. Then again, perhaps we were never the intended audience for such performances. Sure, maybe White House aides are trying to fool the public into believing recession warning signs don’t exist. But maybe they’re actually just trying to fool their boss. 

A frightening conspiracy theory, indeed."

Offline Daverz

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 5166
  • You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down!
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16690 on: August 19, 2019, 06:41:10 PM »
Correction noted.  Thank you.  Maybe someone should tell the President.

Probably safer for the residents of Greenland if Trump thinks they are mostly white.

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16691 on: August 19, 2019, 06:44:09 PM »
Of course all the time people are talking about Greenland they're not talking about gun control.

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1886
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16692 on: August 19, 2019, 06:46:15 PM »
quoting this insanity in its entirety:

Fact check: Trump falsely claims Google 'manipulated' millions of 2016 votes

"In a tweet on Monday, President Donald Trump made a sensational allegation about Google.

"Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought! @JudicialWatch," Trump wrote.

He was referring to a study by psychologist Robert Epstein, which was discussed on Fox Business earlier on Monday.
But Trump did not describe the research correctly. And the research itself has been called into question.

Facts First: Epstein himself says Trump was wrong about his findings. Epstein did find "bias" in Google search results, but he says there is no evidence Google "manipulated" the results to favor Clinton. Also, critics of the study note that there is no definitive link between search results and voting behavior in presidential elections.

First let's address what Epstein says Trump got wrong. Then we'll delve into Epstein's research.

Trump's words and numbers were inaccurate\

Epstein, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, found what he alleges was a pro-Clinton bias in Google's search results.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Epstein said the pro-Clinton bias was "sufficient to have shifted between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes" to Clinton.

There is no basis in Epstein's research for Trump's claim that the alleged bias might have affected "16 million" votes. Epstein did testify in July that big tech companies in general could potentially shift "upwards of 15 million votes" in the 2020 election, but he didn't claim that this happened in 2016.

In the Monday interview, Epstein rejected Trump's claim that Google "manipulated" votes in 2016. He said he does not have firm evidence even that Google intentionally manipulated its search algorithm or results, let alone votes themselves.

"I don't have any evidence that Google manipulated anything. I just have evidence that there was this bias -- highly statistically significantly bias," he said.

Google said Epstein was incorrect in his claims of bias.

"This researcher's inaccurate claim has been debunked since it was made in 2016. As we stated then, we have never re-ranked or altered search results to manipulate political sentiment. Our goal is to always provide people with access to high quality, relevant information for their queries, without regard to political viewpoint," the company said in an email.
(An aside: Judicial Watch, a conservative legal activist group that is active on elections issues, was not involved in Epstein's research. The group told CNN that it believed Trump tagged it in the tweet to encourage it to look into the allegations.)

How Epstein determined there was bias

Epstein is senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and a former editor in chief of Psychology Today magazine. He said he voted for Clinton and is not a Trump supporter today.

For this study, he had 95 people from 24 states, including 21 self-described undecided voters, conduct election-related searches using search engines Google, Yahoo and Bing. Then he had another group of Americans, hired through the crowdsourcing website Amazon Mechanical Turk, use a point scale to rate the supposed bias of the articles found on the first page of the search results.

An extremely pro-Trump article would get a minus-5, while an extremely pro-Clinton article would get a plus-5.

Using this method, he found that Google's results were reliably more pro-Clinton, in both red states and blue states, than Yahoo or Bing results. Then, using his previous research from elections in other countries about how search results can affect voter intentions, he came to a broad estimate of 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes potentially affected by search bias in the US in 2016.

Epstein said he chose to publish his findings on the website Hacker Noon, not in a peer-reviewed journal.

Epstein said he is "suspicious" that Google is deliberately biasing its results, given the Democratic leanings of its employees and the allegations of company "whistleblowers." But he said it is possible the bias comes from the company simply neglecting to fix an unintentionally flawed algorithm.

"I don't even care about the human element. There's a system out there running amok," he said.
Criticism of the data

Other academics have joined Google in criticizing Epstein's methodology and conclusions.

One issue is the quality of news sources.

Google says one of its criteria for ranking news results is how authoritative a source is. Using Epstein's methodology, a search engine whose top results page did not feature an article from a far-right pro-Trump website, such as Breitbart, would be ranked as more biased in favor of Clinton than a search engine that did showcase Breitbart -- even if the first search engine highlighted a deeply informative Washington Post investigation about Trump's past and the second search engine highlighted Breitbart's pro-Trump puff piece.

Epstein emphasized that he is not a Trump fan. But he argued that Google results should not be treating pro-Trump media as second-class "for whatever reason, whatever your excuse."

"I've certainly met people that say Breitbart is a more reliable news source than the New York Times ... there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into these kinds of determinations," he said.

Another issue, other academics say, is that Epstein's study did not establish a link between alleged bias in search results and voter behavior in 2016.

Epstein said he came to the conclusion of bias sufficient to affect 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes based on what he has found in studies of national elections outside the US, including the 2010 Australian prime minister election and a 2014 Indian legislative election.

In other words: Epstein did not test 2016 American voters to see if their Clinton-or-Trump choice had been changed by search results they got. He extrapolated from his previous studies.

In an American presidential election, people tend to know so much about the two leading candidates, and are getting news from so many different sources, that it is not at all clear that search results would affect their preferences the same way they might in other settings where they have less information, said Michael McDonald, a political science professor and elections expert at the University of Florida.

McDonald said it is certainly possible that political results from Google and other search engines have been affected by the unconscious biases of the people who wrote their algorithms. But McDonald said Epstein has failed to establish that any such biases have had anywhere near the magnitude of impact on American presidential voting that Epstein suggests.

"It's just not plausible," McDonald said.

Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at University of California, Los Angeles, and author of the forthcoming book "Beyond the Valley," said Epstein's analysis did not take into account how much a voter might care about a particular subject.

For example, a strongly anti-abortion voter might be more likely to have their vote affected by abortion-related search results than results about another subject. But Epstein's analysis did not distinguish between voters' interest levels in different topics.

And Srinivasan noted that the study did not take into account how people's voting preferences might have been affected by other technological platforms, such as Facebook, which he said was "quite clearly gamed by third parties" in 2016.
"You can't zero in on Google and have Google be your only factor in your analysis to shape one's voting outcomes," he said.

Srinivasan also said that the political value systems of the people who create search algorithms might affect the results.
He said, "Robert and I agree on a lot." But he said Epstein's analysis on search results and voting is overly simplistic."

Thanks. I only saw a blurb about that and couldn't figure out what anyone was saying.

I think a cursory reader would say Google results favor the antiTrump side, but Epstein does not seem to take into account the fact that there's lots of negative things to say about Trump.

I do know that Google Chrome highlights stories in its news feed that come both sides of the aisle, but there may be personalization there...that is, it shows stuff from both sides because I read  stuff from both sides.

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16693 on: August 19, 2019, 11:59:09 PM »
Former South Carolina governor says Trump doesn't deserve re-election, is considering GOP primary challenge

"Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Donald Trump is taking the country in “the wrong direction” and does not deserve to be re-elected in a Meet the Press interview Sunday. He is considering a Republican primary bid against Trump.

Sanford also served as a representative for his state but lost his primary in 2018 after Trump endorsed his opponent, State Rep. Katie Arrington, who eventually lost the general election.

“This conversation began the day after my primary loss last June,” Sanford said. “A friend called and said ‘God just cleared your calendar for a reason, I know what it is. You need to primary the president.’ I’m like, ‘Are you completely out of your mind?’”

But since, Sanford has toyed with the idea.

“There’s been a drumbeat over the last year of people who I admire, who are not crazy, who are very thoughtful saying we need to have this conversation,” he said, referring to the possibility of a primary challenger running against Trump."

Offline drogulus

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 7104
  • Gypsy, 1970
  • Location: Watertown, MA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16694 on: August 20, 2019, 09:36:35 AM »

     Sanford....yikes! He's a shrinkonomics True Believer. The public sector and private sector should shrink so that Mars can be repaid all the dollars we borrowed from them.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Waterfox/56.2.13
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/64.0

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16695 on: August 20, 2019, 02:32:30 PM »
Trump Inflating Scottish Golf Resorts’ Value By $165 Million, Per UK Filings

"President Donald Trump has filed financial disclosure statements that appear to misstate the value and profitability of his Scotland golf courses by $165 million, possibly violating federal laws that are punishable by jail time.

Trump claimed in his 2018 U.S. filing that his Turnberry and Aberdeen resorts were each worth more than $50 million. For that same time period, he filed balance sheets with the United Kingdom government showing that their combined debt exceeded their assets by 47.9 million British pounds ― the equivalent of $64.8 million at the exchange rate on Dec. 31, 2017, the date of the last U.K. filing available.

His 2018 “public financial disclosure” filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics also claims those two resorts earned him “income” of $23.8 million. His filings with the U.K. Companies House office in Edinburgh for that period showed the resorts had actually lost 4.6 million pounds ― equal to $6.3 million.

His U.S. disclosure statement also fails to mention $199.5 million in loans Trump has made to those resorts: $54.9 million from him personally to Trump International, Scotland in Aberdeenshire; $144.6 million from his trust to Trump Turnberry in Ayrshire.

Knowingly providing false or incomplete information on that form is a violation of the Ethics in Government Act punishable by up to a year in jail. Signing the form attesting to the untrue information constitutes making a false statement, punishable by up to five years in prison.
[...]

In any case, the false and missing information on his 2018 filing has been false and missing on Trump’s forms repeatedly, since before he even took office.

On May 16, 2016, for example, then-candidate Trump also claimed on his financial disclosure forms that the two Scotland resorts were worth more than $100 million, even though he filed papers with Companies House on Dec. 31, 2015, acknowledging that the courses had a combined value of negative $32.1 million.

U.S. filings also included erroneous information regarding Trump’s Doonbeg resort in Ireland, which similarly requires annual disclosures from privately held companies. In 2015, 2016 and 2017, Trump told the Irish government that the course had lost millions of dollars ― $7.2 million in all. In that same period, Trump claimed on his American financial disclosures that the course had provided him tens of millions of dollars in income, totaling $37.4 million.
Trump’s golf courses in Scotland and Ireland offer unique insights into the state of Trump’s businesses because they are required to submit detailed financial documents annually, even though they are privately held. In the United States, where the vast majority of Trump’s businesses are located, there is no such disclosure requirement ― meaning there is no straightforward way of determining whether Trump has similarly misstated the asset value and profitability of his U.S. properties.

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1886
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16696 on: August 20, 2019, 02:40:10 PM »
The UK and Ireland filings may also be inaccurate. I assume for UK/Eire tax purposes claiming low value or indebtedness would benefit Trump. The US filings would have no direct impact on his US taxes, although the IRS might be able to use them to challenge anything Trump files with them.

Of course, overstating values on US forms and understating values on UK forms are not mutually exclusive.


Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1886
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16698 on: August 20, 2019, 03:23:05 PM »
Jewish leaders outraged by Trump saying Jews disloyal if they vote for Democrats


Notice Fearless Leader's great skill in allowing the discussion to turn from the antiSemitism of Reps. Tlaib and Omar to his own bigotry.*

*It's not fair to say he is antiSemitic, since he's bigoted against so many other people. He's an equal opportunity bigot.

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6329
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #16699 on: August 20, 2019, 03:32:15 PM »
the latest from President Tweety:

"Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time...."