Quote:
Originally Posted by LaRondo
Your presentation of "common sense" is indeed very common.
You don't like the video someone made to present possible manipulative involvement of the media in the primary election process. Fine.
Regardless of the video makers commentary, it's a very detailed observation and I am sorry to say, unlike yours.
It is also mentioned, the media is merely relaying the shots (supposedly) already being called.
If you happen to bother looking further, it's already been evidenced and documented since 2000, how vulnerable and easily manipulatable electronic voting devices are. Not withstanding their enormously high default failure rates.
To assume technical development and operational control of such devices has stopped since 2000, is .....
You simply ignore those aspects, to say it in short.
The media's attempt to suppress Ron Paul's campaign has been evident since before the primaries. To argue against it, is hardly common sense, but rather bluntly foolish.
Your counter statement to the video is not convincing. You've got to do better than that.
|
Ok I see your game here. My issues (as I've stated, in summary) with the video:
- guys knows very little about statistics - he basically says "1%? That's nuts!" without any substantiation. What he should have done is actually SHOW why 1% is supposedly not sufficient or representative. From a statistical standpoint, it very well can be and often is.
- uses that to base an argument with little working knowledge of media - his questioning of why they report at 1% is "they must know ahead of time!" rather than actually looking at the numbers mathematically and cross examining that with the purpose of media - to report quickly and make a profit (i.e. maintain viewers). Talk about jumping to conclusions. Your retort for these two glaring issues? To tell me that my "common sense is common". Nice.
Did I ever say that computer polling devices were safe and secure? No
Did I ever say Ron Paul hasn't been slighted by the media? No
I don't disagree with those points and never implied it in any way.
So, if you decide to be caustic I will too - mister "detailed observation" perhaps you should stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually stated.