Law Trump weakens Endangered species Act


Could you honestly tell me if you could see any decent American citizen (this disqualifies Trump and the cunts he has fucking up our environment), when asked about coal companies needing to clean up their waste and properly report it, would say "Nah, they don't need to." ??????????
 
Could you honestly tell me if you could see any decent American citizen (this disqualifies Trump and the cunts he has fucking up our environment), when asked about coal companies needing to clean up their waste and properly report it, would say "Nah, they don't need to." ??????????

I'm sure polling would show strong agreement the companies should be held responsible. What's your point?
 
Don't worry... another year and this will all be over. Back to sanity
"I've called every white person in America a racist but no worries we'll win this next time. Surely that inspired people to vote for us." - Dems
 
I'm sure polling would show strong agreement the companies should be held responsible. What's your point?

My point is that the public is one side of the argument, and the Trump admin is on the other. It's about as easy a diametric choice as possible. These fucks don't give a shit about the American public.
Less regulations bad!!

Depends entirely upon the regulation.
 
My point is that the public is one side of the argument, and the Trump admin is on the other. It's about as easy a diametric choice as possible. These fucks don't give a shit about the American public.

Polls are basically lip-service.
 
Trump at it again. This time waging war against our environment. Pretty disgusting if you ask me
 
In that you can't mind read, and have to trust the answers given to you by recipients of the survey?

In that there's nothing riding on the answer. If they showed concern and then were asked to give money or commit to giving up something in their daily lives then I'd expect a ton of backpeddling.
 
In that there's nothing riding on the answer. If they showed concern and then were asked to give money or commit to giving up something in their daily lives then I'd expect a ton of backpeddling.

What in the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about being able to discern, from polling people, as to what they would think on a given issue. Anyone, ANYONE not a complete moron would side against the GOP and Trump admin when it comes to requiring oil and coal companies to accurately report their pollution, and clean it up in an efficient and legal manner.

What are you speaking of, wanting people to commit financially in order to be taken seriously in polling data?
 
That's what I was wondering if you. None of this has anything to do with my post you quoted and I was trying to be nice by responding.


<28>

You stated that these absurd policies are reflective of the constituency. They are not, when polling data is introduced. You don't take polling data seriously, apparently because you can't mind read the participants to tell if they're being truthful, and they need to put money on the line in order to be taken seriously.

It would be nice if you weren't so damn absurd.
 
You stated that these absurd policies are reflective of the constituency. They are not, when polling data is introduced. You don't take polling data seriously, apparently because you can't mind read the participants to tell if they're being truthful, and they need to put money on the line in order to be taken seriously.

It would be nice if you weren't so damn absurd.

Reminds me of this quote.

No, not a sociology degree.


<WellThere>
 
Reminds me of this quote.




<WellThere>

It's hard to tell if you're awful at trolling or just genuinely stupid.

I asked you a rather simple series of questions, and your response, in summation, was that polls are bs because you have to take people at their word.
<Huh2><Huh2><Huh2><Huh2>
 
One of us makes 6 figures and the other one doesnt. One of us has a college degree and the other one doesnt.
One of has been happily married for 14 years with kids while the other one is not and does not. One of us volunteers in the community, coaches softball and baseball and donates to all different types of charities and the other does not.

Which one of us is the delusional one? lol
The one who married you.

lol
 
Your view on polls in not shared by anyone above the age of 3 with a functioning cortex. I'm sorry, but it's not at all my measure.

Granted, I've forgotten most of the shit I needed to know to earn my degree in Sociology (I blame self-inflicted brain damage), so I conducted a brief refresher and this was stumbled across.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll#Wording_of_questions


It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. For instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". This support itself overrides subtle bias for one candidate, as does lumping some candidates in an "other" category or vice versa. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. On some issues, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys.[20][21] This can also, however, be a result of legitimately conflicted feelings or evolving attitudes, rather than a poorly constructed survey.[22]

A common technique to control for this bias is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. Many pollsters also split-sample. This involves having two different versions of a question, with each version presented to half the respondents.

The most effective controls, used by attitude researchers, are:

  • asking enough questions to allow all aspects of an issue to be covered and to control effects due to the form of the question (such as positive or negative wording), the adequacy of the number being established quantitatively with psychometric measures such as reliability coefficients, and
  • analyzing the results with psychometric techniques which synthesize the answers into a few reliable scores and detect ineffective questions.
These controls are not widely used in the polling industry.[why?]. However, as it is important that questions to test the product have a high quality, survey methodologists work on methods to test them. Empirical tests provide insight into the quality of the questionnaire, some may be more complex than others. For instance, testing a questionnaire can be done by:

  • conducting cognitive interviewing. By asking a sample of potential-respondents about their interpretation of the questions and use of the questionnaire, a researcher can
  • carrying out a small pretest of the questionnaire, using a small subset of target respondents. Results can inform a researcher of errors such as missing questions, or logical and procedural errors.
  • estimating the measurement quality of the questions. This can be done for instance using test-retest,[23] quasi-simplex,[24] or mutlitrait-multimethod models.[25]
  • predicting the measurement quality of the question. This can be done using the software Survey Quality Predictor (SQP).[26]


So with this in mind, let's revisit.


It's laughable to think you could poll people reliably in any state, using clear language, and think the voting public would support all these EPA rules being decapitated.........


Could you honestly tell me if you could see any decent American citizen (this disqualifies Trump and the cunts he has fucking up our environment), when asked about coal companies needing to clean up their waste and properly report it, would say "Nah, they don't need to." ??????????

I'm sure polling would show strong agreement the companies should be held responsible. What's your point?

My point is that the public is one side of the argument, and the Trump admin is on the other. It's about as easy a diametric choice as possible. These fucks don't give a shit about the American public.


Depends entirely upon the regulation.

Polls are basically lip-service.

In that you can't mind read, and have to trust the answers given to you by recipients of the survey?

In that there's nothing riding on the answer. If they showed concern and then were asked to give money or commit to giving up something in their daily lives then I'd expect a ton of backpeddling.


I guess I'm back to thinking your single, one-sided polling question is unlikely to capture the entirety of where stated public sentiment and reality merge.


<28>
 
You literally hate the NY Post for every article they write, but you like this one? They are a glorified national Esquire
 
Back
Top