- This topic has 29 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated by Vulash.
October 28, 2021 at 2:02 pm #160640
Jack, if you have nothing to say, go back to your room and quit acting like a child.October 28, 2021 at 2:10 pm #160642
Vulash, the research is research. Results are results. It’s how you interpret the results.
Also it’s the input numbers for research. You believe that the numbers are truly skewed that far off in Dem vs Rep being vaccinated? You need to see how the numbers were input and where the numbers came from. If they surveyed Rep’s mostly from the heartland and rural areas vs Dems from high populated areas that could skew the results dramatically.
Point being, depending on how it is set up can skew numbers. And even how you categorize the results can make your results look any way you want. I showed you that with the demographics for race.
Let’s not get into a pissing contest here. I’ll put my years of analyzing simple surveys, double blind studies and focus group interpretation up against most anybody on this board.October 28, 2021 at 2:35 pm #160645
They clearly state how they came up with the numbers in the article I linked. Clearly. It’s not even close to what you said – which means you didn’t even bother clicking on it or reading it.
You didn’t show that. You showed how to disingenuously skew numbers by posting a small subset of the facts, making assumptions for the audience, and intentionally leaving out key parts. I didn’t do that. KFF didn’t do that. You don’t have a point here.
Considering your complete misunderstanding of the basic math required to understand the studies we’re discussing, I wouldn’t put your ability to analyze anything over most people on this site. Your only ability to stay in conversations on this board is the fact that you have no shame, and deflect constantly.
You said you didn’t see my original post with factual data (most likely a lie), then you’ve responded to me twice without actually addressing any of the substance. Both times you’ve made egregious assumptions that show you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. It clearly states in the article they didn’t survey anyone, as you postulated. You didn’t even realize that while you were trying to undermine my source, I used the exact same source you did. So when I asked how they slanted that article, specifically, you had no answer. At least you typed some words, and they were in English.
Furthermore, this is the second or third time you’ve attempted to tell me that using CNN, ABC, or NBC are biased and disqualifies my statements. I’ve never once used them a source for anything. Show me a single use. Are you assuming because I’m liberal on this topic that my information must come from one of them? You’re trying to discredit me on here by using nothing but your own baseless assumptions.
I’m sorry if you don’t like the fact that someone is actually making you answer for the stuff you’ve said. That’s not a pissing contest. You made factually incorrect statements (again), and I’m not going to let you deflect away like you like to do.
So answer this: Did you use KFF as a source to support your initial topic while honestly believing they were disingenuous and slanted, or do you think KFF is a valid source when you use them, but not when I do?October 28, 2021 at 6:13 pm #160661
WOW, way too much bloviating there to even try to respond to. But facts are facts.
In that research the Black population is the least vaccinated.
The Black population is predominately Democrat.
So ….. how in heaven’s name do you equate antivaxxers only with Republicans? That makes no sense at all.
If you can’t think for yourself you listen to the media.October 28, 2021 at 7:02 pm #160678
No one has made that claim. “A majority of” is not “only”.
Did you use KFF as a source to support your initial topic while honestly believing they were disingenuous and slanted, or do you think KFF is a valid source when you use them, but not when I do?October 31, 2021 at 9:26 pm #161109
You can’t logically make that conclusion.OPNovember 1, 2021 at 4:51 pm #161194
Like I said Vulash, any survey can be set up from the get go to “prove” results you want to see. Let’s not get into a pissing match about this. I’ve dealt with researchers for years that have given me the outcome that I desired. Even if the results came out skewed to the wrong side, we’ve been able to position the outcome as favorable.
Biggest example of how research numbers are completely skewed I can give you is the 2016 Presidential election results. Going into the last week of the election Hillary was the odds on guaranteed winner. Election night proved otherwise. Trump came out with a surprise run away victory of 304 to 227 electoral votes. Wasn’t even close.
Problem with Hillary’s research was they were counting individual votes, not electoral votes. Hillary killed it in NY and CA. Rest of the country was much different. So if you don’t know what the research really says and how it is set up to begin with the results you think you have could be interpreted completely wrong.November 1, 2021 at 9:32 pm #161202
70% of 46% is not a majority. Your OP does not follow basic logic or math. I do not believe cc assessment of your intelligenceNovember 2, 2021 at 5:39 pm #161260
Butleer is brainwashed , AKA a Trump cultist.
undercover Nazi, racist, easy manipulated is the MO for these charactersNovember 2, 2021 at 9:24 pm #161276
- I used the same source (KFF) that you did
- They discuss their methodology. You don’t get to dismiss it from laziness. I’ve mentioned that they discuss it multiple times.
- Calling you on your crap is not a pissing contest.
So are you saying you used KFF as a source to make your point, knowing that they manipulated the data to say what they wanted.
Or, are you saying they aren’t reliable when I use them, but they are when you use them?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.