Trump Takes on NFL - Page 48 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14925064
One Degree wrote:No answer can exceed the number of people responding no matter how many choices they have. Each person can only choose it once. I am also referring to the specific poll numbers he listed, not some ideal situation.


Were not counting the number that chose a single answer. We're counting the number that responded to All the answers available for a single question.

Out of 100 people - 65 chose answer A - 75 chose answer B - 30 chose answer c - that's 170 total answers which is 170% of the participants. Now if you don't get that, YOU show US your math.

Zam :lol:
User avatar
By One Degree
#14925067
Zamuel wrote:Were not counting the number that chose a single answer. We're counting the number that responded to All the answers available for a single question.

Out of 100 people - 65 chose answer A - 75 chose answer B - 30 chose answer c - that's 170 total answers which is 170% of the participants. Now if you don't get that, YOU show US your math.

Zam :lol:


You are distorting the data. You can not freely switch back and forth between responses and respondents. You can list your results both ways, but you do not intermingle them unless you are attempting to distort the results. Reporting the results both ways results with only 100%.
But again, I don’t really care about your hypotheticals. I was pointing out a problem with the actual numbers he posted.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14925091
One Degree wrote:You are distorting the data. You can not freely switch back and forth between responses and respondents. You can list your results both ways, but you do not intermingle them unless you are attempting to distort the results. Reporting the results both ways results with only 100%.
But again, I don’t really care about your hypotheticals. I was pointing out a problem with the actual numbers he posted.

There isn't any problem ... it's very simple mathematics ... I did statistical analysis in payment for tuition at college ... this is NOTHING compared to the complex tabulation required for that. I was joking when I suggested you return to 5th grade math, but I guess you should seriously consider it.

Zam
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14925092
One Degree wrote:No answer can exceed the number of people responding no matter how many choices they have. Each person can only choose it once. I am also referring to the specific poll numbers he listed, not some ideal situation.

No, it's been specified since you started this that people can choose MORE than ONE answer. You seem to be waffling just so you don't have to admit to a simple error or misunderstanding, it does nothing for your credibility, which was dubious to begin with.

Zam
User avatar
By One Degree
#14925093
Why did you see the necessity to double post when neither post is relevant? Volume does not increase credibility.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14925096
@One Degree You still did not address the other facts in my post and only chose to cherry pick one thing(and wrongly at that).

In the case of Multi Select questions, the number of responses may exceed the number of participants, which can cause the response percentage to exceed 100%.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14925100
Godstud wrote:@One Degree You still did not address the other facts in my post and only chose to cherry pick one thing(and wrongly at that).

In the case of Multi Select questions, the number of responses may exceed the number of participants, which can cause the response percentage to exceed 100%.


Actually, it was only intended as a humorous attempt to draw your attention to it. I was not making any accusations of deliberate distortion. Now that you and Zam are so defensive, I am starting to wonder. Repeating myself, reporting percentages will always equal 100% unless you are conflating for distortion purposes. There is no other reason to show results totallly more than 100% presented as they were.
#14925245
Drlee wrote:This may well be true. I would not care to argue the case without some pretty good evidence to the contrary.

I've seen at least three analysis that come to a similar conclusion. More generally, I think it's sound to argue that you cannot simply proceed from a disparity based on the population proportion of blacks and then claim that police target and kill blacks at will. That's what BLM and Kaepernick seem to be doing though. In the video I posted Kaepernick claims that blacks live in terror of police and that nothing has changed since the time of Jim Crow, and he made these comments at an Amnesty event where he got an award. This kind of thinking and attitude is not something that anybody should support, whether it is alluded to at a sporting event, said outright or perpetuated by a thoroughly biased press.

Drlee wrote:That notwithstanding we have evidence of police shooting of people who ought not to have been shot under the circumstances of their shooting. Clearly a solution should be applied to these whether or not race was a factor.

I think if this was presented as a police violence problem rather than a police are out to get blacks and shoot them problem, it wouldn't be that contentious, although I'm still not sure if people would appreciate politics invading sports to such an extent and for so long. As far as I can tell, there is also a tendency among Republicans to reflexively declare that police can do no wrong, and we probably agree that this is counterproductive.

It's also worthwhile to note that police shootings have been going down overall for some time and that this is true across all groups.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14925246
One Degree wrote:Actually, it was only intended as a humorous attempt to draw your attention to it. I was not making any accusations of deliberate distortion. Now that you and Zam are so defensive, I am starting to wonder. Repeating myself, reporting percentages will always equal 100% unless you are conflating for distortion purposes. There is no other reason to show results totallly more than 100% presented as they were.
Thank you for showing your inherent dishonesty and your complete willful ignorance. Good job!

Facts are still facts even if you don't believe them.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14944283
This is precisely why we need laws banning corporate political participation of all kinds. The duty of Nike is to the stockholders. Not to some vague political goal. Not only should this be seen as executive malpractice, we need to ban all corporate contributions to any political cause whatsoever. If the stockholders see a financial or political advantage in backing an issue or politician they can use their personal portfolio to make those contributions.

Of course I believe that personal contributions should be limited but one step at a time.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14944430
I find it strange that people pitching to the NFL audience do not know the audience. This is clearly going to fall flat, so much so that the stock tanked before sales started slumping.

The Deafening Silence of Colin Kaepernick

Kaepernick won't stand for the flag but he'll bow down to the Nike dollar? So much for 'sacrificing everything'

[url]Tom Brady signals his support of Colin Kaepernick's controversial Nike ad as outraged customers burn their sneakers in row over the anthem-protester becoming the face of iconic Just Do It campaign[/url]

As outraged Nike customers burned products in protest over the campaign, Brady 'liked' several pictures of it that were posted on Instagram by Lebron James, Kevin Durant, GQ and Chris Paul.

I wonder why they think trying to foist Kaepernick on the NFL again is going to work.
User avatar
By colliric
#14944431
blackjack21 wrote:I find it strange that people pitching to the NFL audience do not know the audience. This is clearly going to fall flat, so much so that the stock tanked before sales started slumping.


They know the audience, they're delibrately doing this
SJW bullshit. They did this to be "edgy". Marketing departments often don't give a shit about the bottom line these days. "Our company can't die, it's too big, let's push our progressive agenda onto our built in sporting customer base" type thinking.

I bet they thought it wasn't going to tank this bad through.

https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/st ... lumn4.html

Remember when Michael Moore use to trash these people. I loved The Big One! Too bad he sold out to corporate Democrats assholes.

I wonder those 14-16 year olds still working on the shoes in Indonesia made these ones today being burnt? Probably.
User avatar
By Red_Army
#14944432
The NFL has better ratings than most sports (the NBA is the only one coming close to overtaking it). NASCAR is a sport loved by MAGA chud dipshits and it has worse ratings than any other popular American sport. This Kaep stuff is having almost no effect on it.

Nothing is more awesome than watching moron conservatives burn shit that they already bought to protest its creators though. Thanks for the lols you absolute morons :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
By colliric
#14944433
Red_Army wrote:
Nothing is more awesome than watching moron conservatives burn shit that they already bought to protest its creators though. Thanks for the lols you absolute morons :lol: :lol: :lol:


Nike has lost $5billion in one single day...

I'm sure the Shareholders are real happy they just lost a shitload of cash and the stock just tanked.
User avatar
By Red_Army
#14944434
I hope the shalehorders burn in a fire. Nike is powered by sweatshop labor. Nike failing because of idiots who ignored horrible labor practices, but don't like black people is a perfect scenario for me. I hope Nike lose and idiots keep burning stuff they already paid for. I'm sure Nike will persevere, but it would be funny if this non-issue tanked it.

What happened to the fact before feelings conservatives? Now they cry because a guy won't stand for a dumb song. This is the biggest example of an invaded safe space in the news right now.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14944448
I don't believe that Nike is playing for the short game. I think they are playing a longer one. They realize that younger people support this kind of stance and the old ones are dying off. And certainly not buying Nike shoes.

snip.

Nike has a contract with the NFL that runs for another decade. The NFL can't fuck with Nike and frankly, with a worth of $91 billion and name recognition up the wazoo the NFL would be stupid to do it. The NFL is in enough trouble without alienating just about every young person to suck up to a bunch of dumb ass crackers who analysts seem to be forgetting are not buying Nike's in the first place. (No room for a holster in Nike's sleek designs.)

snip

The NFL fucked Nike with their racist ban on Kapernick. They have been sponsoring him all along and when the rich racist crackers who own the NFL couldn't stand one of their 'boys' standing for something and banned Kapernick from playing they took a Nike investment down too. Payback is a bitch.

Finally, my wife and I just spoke about running over and tanking up on Nike stuff.
  • 1
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]