WHEN ‘PUSH’ COMES TO SHOVE, THE TRUTH BEHIND POLLS!
What drives ‘Push Polls’ is the need to be right, and if the results of fabricated polls influence your stance on a specific issue or candidate without the slightest concern or consideration of what’s best for the country, then the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, and its financial backers that usually remain hidden in the shadows, win!!
IS THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY OR TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO BE RIGHT AND WIN, OR IS IT THE IDEOLOGY OF HILLARY’S CONTINUATION OF OBAMA’S PAST 7+ YEARS SOCIALIST AGENDA, OR TRUMP’S ‘AMERICA FIRST’ PARTY’S MESSAGE OF ‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?? ONLY YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT!!
ARE PERSONAL CHARACTER FLAWS, MORE IMPORTANT THEN IDEOLOGY WHEN DETERMINING THE FUTURE OF THIS EXCEPTIONAL COUNTRY CALLED AMERICA??
One of the most prevalent - and damaging - themes in our culture is the need to be right. It's one of those essential memes that we take for granted. It is so deeply embedded in our belief system and in our collective psyche that we never even pause to consider it.
Being right affirms and inflates our sense of self-worth. As students we learn to avoid as best we can the embarrassment of being wrong. Isn't it regrettable that this may be inconsistent with actually learning?
Can you imagine the generative and exciting learning environment that would result from a class that rewarded asking the best questions?
Why is it so vital to be right? Well to begin with, if you're not right, then you are indeed wrong, with all the accompanying sense of humiliation and failure.
I DON’T THINK YOU WILL EVER GET A CALL FROM A POLLING COMPANY ASKING YOU ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, BUT LET’S SEE HOW YOU WOULD ANSWER BEFORE CONTINUING ON WITH WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LIES BEHIND THE NUMBERS, AND WHY YOU SHOULD USE JUST A LITTLE COMMON SENSE!!
THE COMMON SENSE PUTNEY POLL….
1. If you had a choice between having control of your own life, or giving control of your life to the government, which would you prefer?
2. Would you agree to the recommendation of a band on all guns, or the right to defend yourself against the unvetted immigrants from Syria who practice Sharia Law, and could care less about the rights of women and assimilating with what makes America great?
3. Would you prefer a President pushing a strong military defending and keeping Americans safe, or a President who will allocate the funds taken away from the military budget, to not only diminish our presence in the world, but to financially support the Illegal immigrants who ideology wise are not in line with the beliefs of what made America great, or the Constitution?
4. Are you going to continue to support companies who don’t back the ‘Will’ of the American People by pulling their support and assistance from the GOP convention? The outsider Trump threatens their Globalist, open border agenda to increase their market share in the world, and used bribes to buy the votes to the political elite to pass TPA!!!!
http://universalfreepress.com/2015/boehner-got-5-million-ryan-2-million-mcconnell-9-million-any-doubt-why-tpa-passed/
Oh, by the way, those companies are: Wells Fargo, U.P.S., Motorola, JP Morgan Chase, Ford Motors, Walgreens, Coca Cola, Hewlett Packard, and the list is probably growing as I type!
I could go on with the questions you will never get to hear from the half-truth pollsters in the world, but I think you know where I am going with this, and when you consider the fact that Hillary, because she’s afraid of the question, and resulting in her having to come up with another manufactured lie without a teleprompter to answer, because she can’t think on her feet, hasn’t had an open Press Conference in over 6 months!!
WHAT ‘PUSHES’ THE PUSH POLL, AND DON’T LET IT PUSH YOU INTO
ANYTHING THAT WON’T MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!
During every campaign season, a great deal of attention is properly devoted to condemning misleading television advertisements and nasty direct mail. But the telephone is now the primary means for delivering underhanded and anonymous attacks in political campaigns. This explosion in negative phoning--called "push polling"--has largely been ignored, even though it has become the rage in American campaigns, to the detriment of both civility and the truth. The push poll operates under the guise of legitimate survey research to spread lies, rumors, and innuendo about candidates. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of voters were telephoned and push polled during the 1994 elections. This effort dramatically increased the negativity in American politics.
Many voters and observers are disgusted and enraged by this tactic, but sleaze telephoning can work efficiently and effectively. Unless exposed and checked, it is bound to become standard ammunition in campaign arsenals across the United States. Only a sharp, sustained rebuke from the press and an informed public bent on punishing the perpetrators can stop the swift spread of this campaign cancer.
REACH OUT AND SLIME SOMEONE!!
A push poll is a survey instrument containing questions that attempt to change the opinion of contacted voters, generally by divulging negative information about the opponent. In other words, it's campaigning under the guise of research.
A second type of push poll--the "agenda-driven survey"--is intended to produce a favorable result for the client-candidate, so that potential contributors and the press can be apprised of the candidate's "impending victory." Donors want to give hard-earned dollars to a likely winner, and the news media love to publish and air horse-race polls. With some luck, skillful pollsters can create a bandwagon effect for their candidate. The poll consists of reading biographical sketches--heavily biased against the opponent--and asking the respondent whom they will likely support. As you might guess, these polls are extremely poor predictors of actual outcomes.
The first two types of push polls seem almost harmless when compared with the third form, namely "negative persuasive" or "advocacy phoning." This push poll is not really a poll at all, but a form of targeted voter contact and canvassing. It doesn't target a random sample, but as many voters in a target population--union members, for example, or gun owners--as possible. The message is short--even a minute or less--and asks no demographical background information of the respondents. Respondents are first asked which candidate they favor. If the client-candidate is chosen, the respondent is simply placed on the get-out-the-vote list for election day. But if the respondent picks the opponent or says she is undecided, then a torrent of negativity is unleashed: "Would you still support this person if you learned that he [is a tax-evader, a baby-killer, or shoots newborn puppies for sport]?" As one frank push pollster explains, "What you're trying to do is mobilize voters against a candidate.... You're taking a specific audience and literally telling them why they shouldn't be voting for somebody."
Did you ever notice how the non-politician, Donald Trump is
the main topic on every home page when you get on the internet, or the
mainstream news and newspapers, while Hillary has not given an open Press
conference in over 6 months and doesn’t address any question that the American
People need to hear, and refuses to answer? Have you ever noticed how every
scripted speech she gives is delivered by Hillary in a monotone voice?
Do you ever wonder why, back in 2007, Hillary just stepped aside to let Obama be the nominee for the Democratic, now Socialist, Party? Did you ever wonder why the Clinton Foundation, the Emails that opened the world to the secrets of our Military, endangered our national security, and why at the same time $6 Billion Dollars disappeared from Hillary’s State Department without a trace? Did you ever think about how the Clinton Foundation skimmed off the top of those same secrets and took bribes that were laundered through the Clinton Foundation by countries that practice the anti-woman practice by following Sharia Law then, and still do today? Do you ever wonder why our political elite took bribes to pass the TPA trade deal and expand and opened America’s markets, and borders to competition where labor is much cheaper and visas are issued in volume to have cultures, who won’t assimilate, freely come and go as they choose?
Facts, as often reported, may be based on statistics. Statistics are based on data — data which is inherently based on a collection of opinions. The danger of statistics is that what we often see reported as fact may not be as reliable as we are led to believe.
Data analysis can be a fuzzy science. But, when used properly, statistics can be invaluable for such purposes as predicting elections, quantifying public opinion, estimating trends, and forecasting the effects of policy change. So why the bad rap?
Political polls are the grease behind campaigns, election forecasts, favorability ratings, and a seemingly infinite number of media reports. Professional pollsters provide the raw data that campaign handlers knead, massage, twist, and spin to generate “fact-based” messages about their candidates or causes.
These pollsters are employed by election campaigns, news
media, think tanks, political parties, and special interest groups. A good
pollster is revered and sought after by competing elements in the political
spectrum.
Not surprisingly, a vast some of money is spent on polling. Total polling expenditures in the 2012 presidential election was estimated at close to $50 million. While this figure represents only 2-3 percent of total campaign spending, it is still a staggering sum.
When survey results can be used favorably or to prove a point, they become the word of authority; when poll numbers are down, politicians dismiss the results.
Some polls, at best, offer nothing more than entertainment value. Others, like those conducted by Gallup, have been respected for over 75 years. How are these polls conducted? How are the statistics generated? And, how can the average voter look behind the numbers and determine the accuracy of polling results?
Survey researchers use specialized jargon to convey the reliability of survey results. Terms such as “statistically significant,” “margin of error,” and “confidence level” help describe and make inferences when analyzing data. These terms are used to extend limited poll results to the larger population.
The key question of whether a difference seen in a poll is “statistically significant” can be restated as “is the difference enough to allow for normal sampling error?” So what is this concept of sampling error, and why is there error at all?
We begin with a population, which, in many election polls, may be defined as likely voters. An actual election is not a sample at all; it is a census of those who voted. But, for polling purposes, it is neither practical nor cost-effective to speak with everyone in the target population; instead, a sample is drawn.
The underlying principle which assures polling accuracy is that those interviewed are representative of the target population and that each individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected for interview. This is the science of sampling technique, and when using a scientific sample, a relatively small number of individuals can be used to project to the target population.
The art of the “spin” is the domain of political consultants and strategists who take fact-based data and use it to benefit their candidate or cause. Always consider not only the source of polling data, but who is reporting it, and whether it is being selectively used to distort the complete story behind the numbers.
As a general rule, accept what comes from reliable, unbiased
sources. Statistics being reported by a candidate, a campaign, or other
partisan stakeholders should not be accepted at face value without further
scrutiny. Information is easy to come by, and readily verified, but it is
critical to differentiate between well-substantiated facts and partisan half-truths.
Statistics don’t lie; people do, and when it comes to Hillary Clinton these 10 reasons not to voter for her are good enough reasons for me!
1) I will NOT vote for someone based on the color of their skin. If I did, that would make me a racist. I will also not vote for someone solely based on their gender. If I did that would make me a sexist.
2) Speaking of gender, I cannot support a woman who touts about women’s rights but she gladly takes money from men that treat women as property. The “Bill Hillary and Chelsea Foundation” has taken millions from countries in the Middle East that treat women like dogs. Hmmmm…. kind of hypocritical if you ask me…. don’t you think!?
3) Hillary is also known for championing gay rights…. but
her same foundation has taken millions from countries that horrifically and
brutally kill people just for being gay…. again…. hypocritical right??!
4) On September 11th, 2012 The American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Killing Ambassador Chris Stephens, Officer Sean Smith, CIA Operatives-Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Secretary of State Officials (who were ordered by Hillary Clinton) denied several requests for additional security in Benghazi. It has also been reported that when nearby CIA operatives heard the cry for help-they were told to “Stand Down.” Why were they told to stand down? To me-it’s obvious. It was very close to the 2012 re-election of Obama. Obama was running on the fact that he had pretty much rid the world of terrorism…. if they would have sent guys in to help our men-it’d would have been a much more publicized situation. So they let our guys die. “Never leave a man behind” …. hmmm…. not in Hillary’s world.
5) Shortly after the Benghazi attacks…. Hillary and Obama
stood before the American people and told us that the Benghazi attack was due
to a you tube video, it has now been confirmed through emails that Hillary and
Obama, knew it was not due to a video within 2 hours after the Benghazi
attack…..but they had no problem telling “we” -the dumb, stupid American people
that this attack was because of a video…..ahhhh who cares if our elected
officials lie to us right!??
6) Hillary turned a blind eye while her hubby Bill ran around with a convicted Pedophile-Jeffery Epstein. Jefferey is known to have been with girls suspected as young as 11 years old!!! Gross right?!! When I say “hang out” with-I mean…taking trips with Jefferey to foreign islands…one island known as “orgy island.” Now, instead of being a strong woman, bold and fearless in confronting this evil…. Hillary ignored the behavior. “Well…. guys will be guys” …. ummm no-not with children! I am a strong woman and I would NEVER put up with that shit!
7) I know it’s easy to forget…..but when Hillary’s serving
in public office….whether it’s “Senator”
or “Secretary of State” she works for US! That’s right you and me…. aka…the
PUBLIC. Hillary did not comply with the Federal Records Act. Which makes it
clear that all Official government business should be conducted through a government
email account. Hillary just decided to set up her own personal account to
conduct official government business as Secretary of State- oh and she had her
as own server as well! Because she’s Hillary right….and the law doesn’t apply
to her😉 It is REQUIRED that if any government
business is conducted through personal email-these emails are to be forwarded
to the State Department’s official records system-which is what Colin Powell
did while he was Secretary of State. Hillary didn’t do this….and when she was
asked for the emails……. she turned the ones SHE selected over (how convenient)
then …. of course-she wiped the server clean….
8) Hillary may claim to be just like one of us…. but she
hasn’t driven a car in 20yrs…. she has her own personal chauffeur. Because
driving a car guys is sooo hard. Hillary’s net worth is over 20 million! She
says she wants to help us “every day Americans” …. but she has no clue what
it’s like to be an “every day American.” I personally want someone that has
lived in the private sector, held a normal job, and knows what a gallon of milk
costs…. I am so over these career politicians….and Hillary is the epitome of a
career politician!
9) So… I have yet to meet one person that can name me 3 major accomplishments Hillary has made that qualifies her to become the President of the United States…. I am not asking for a loooooong list…just name three! Oh and please for the love -don’t say “Russian Re-set” …. after that “re-set” Putin invaded the Ukraine…. mmmkay. And please don’t say our foreign policy has improved under her lead…. Ummm …. Hillary even refused to say Boko Haram was a terrorist organization…. huh…. I guess kidnapping girls and selling them into sex slavery doesn’t count ……oh and let’s remember Iraq caved to Islamic terrorism as well while she was Secretary of State…. ummm…have you checked out the state of the Middle East lately???
10) Lastly……With half of Americans receiving some kind of government assistance…. I got to say this is deeply saddening. America, the land of opportunity…. now the land of government handouts. It’s time to be inspired again! To get Americans working again, dreaming again, believing again…. but with Hillary…. it’ll be more of what we have had the last 7.5 years. More debt, more government over-reach, and less individual freedom.
I will not fall victim to trading my freedom for government enslavement through dependency…and I hope you won’t either.
It is possible that this high degree of support may result
more from the perception that Hillary is inevitable rather than from widespread
substantive agreement with many of her policies, because upon close
examination, there is a litany of positions she's taken that many on the left
would find highly problematic. ~~By Joseph Mulkerin, Truthout | Op-Ed
1. Foreign Policy
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was reportedly one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, pushing for the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan and US intervention in Libya. She has also been a vocal proponent of the same drone war that has led to the deaths of 2,400 civilians. In her recent memoir, Hard Choices, she bragged about having presided over the imposition of "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian economy during her tenure as secretary of state. These crippling sanctions are a form of collective punishment and have benefited the wealthy only, while making life miserable for everyone else. In an interview with Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg in August 2014, she further outlined her views on Iran, staking out a maximalist position on Iranian nuclear enrichment, which effectively opens the door to military intervention. She also suggested that the United States should have done more to intervene in Syria, by, in her words, creating a "credible fighting force," while the lack of said force led to the rise of ISIS. In addition, she vociferously defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the assault on Gaza. Not surprisingly, her bellicose rhetoric has received praise from neocon luminary Robert Kagan. Senator Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war, a vote for which it took her more than a decade to express regret, was clearly not a temporary lapse in judgment.
2. Economy
Her recent foray into vague populist rhetoric notwithstanding, Clinton has long nurtured close ties to the financial sector. Over the course of her political career, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have been among her top political donors, in addition to giving heavily to the Clinton Foundation. In October 2013, Clinton received $400,000 to speak at two Goldman Sachs events and delivered what was described as a "reassuring message" to the assembled bankers. In all likelihood, a second Clinton administration would involve the appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts in the perpetually revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government. It's understandable then that her friends on Wall Street would be quick to shrug off her halfhearted attempt to shore up her left flank as anything but substantive. Nobody who was genuinely concerned with economic inequity would be hobnobbing with some of the same economic institutions whose reckless financial schemes helped engineer the 2008 economic collapse.
Hillary Clinton has a long history of being willing to serve the interests of large corporations. In 1976, while serving as legal counsel for the Rose Law Firm, she represented several Arkansas utilities companies that sued the state after a ballot initiative (sponsored by conservative boogeyman Acorn) passed that decreased utilities rates on Little Rock residents and increased them on businesses. In defending the utilities conglomerates, she argued that the initiative amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of property. The judge ruled in these companies' favor.
3. Environment
As Grist magazine reported, during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton took an active role in promoting hydro fracking worldwide through the Global Shale Gas Initiative. Clinton's State Department, and in some cases she personally, lobbied on behalf of companies like Chevron intent on expanding the practice, particularly in countries like Bulgaria and Romania where there was widespread public skepticism. This lobbying was met with mixed success, as Chevron eventually pulled out of Bulgaria due to a moratorium, while Romania's moratorium was repealed following US lobbying. Since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has continued to express support for the practice, which she outlined in a September 2014 speech to the National Clean Energy Summit. She has also remained disturbingly silent on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline.
4. Civil Liberties
If you have been outraged by the Obama administration's abysmal record on civil liberties - from its continuation of NSA spying, rampant secrecy and overzealous prosecution of whistleblowers - and would like to see a change in the post 9/11 status quo, then Hillary Clinton is the last candidate you should expect change from. In the Senate, she voted for the Patriot Act as well as its subsequent reauthorization. In an appearance in April 2014 at the University of Connecticut, she defended NSA surveillance and chastised whistleblower Edward Snowden, accusing him of supporting terrorism.
5. Culture Wars
Clinton has a long history of cynical pandering on hot button social and culture war issues. As a senator, she frequently co-sponsored legislation that would make many on the left cringe. In 2005, she joined a bipartisan group of senators in signing onto the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which, according to the ACLU, would effectively have legalized discrimination. Later that same year, she introduced a bill that would have made flag burning a felony.
In addition, she has an extensive history of anti-video game demagoguery, something that wouldn't exactly endear her to younger voters. In July 2005, she called upon the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas over the "hot coffee mod" - a sexually explicit mini-game within GTA. This led to the game's rating being changed to Adults Only until Rockstar Games removed it from shelves. In November 2005, she introduced legislation that would have banned the sale of games rated M for mature to anybody under the age of 17. Two years later, she again introduced similar legislation in the middle of her first presidential bid.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, “WHERE DO WE, AS AMERICANS, GO
FROM HERE?”
What drives ‘Push Polls’ is the need to be right, and if the results of fabricated polls influence your stance on a specific issue or candidate without the slightest concern or consideration of what’s best for the country, then the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, and its financial backers that usually remain hidden in the shadows, win!!
IS THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY OR TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO BE RIGHT AND WIN, OR IS IT THE IDEOLOGY OF HILLARY’S CONTINUATION OF OBAMA’S PAST 7+ YEARS SOCIALIST AGENDA, OR TRUMP’S ‘AMERICA FIRST’ PARTY’S MESSAGE OF ‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?? ONLY YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT!!
One of the most prevalent - and damaging - themes in our culture is the need to be right. It's one of those essential memes that we take for granted. It is so deeply embedded in our belief system and in our collective psyche that we never even pause to consider it.
Being right affirms and inflates our sense of self-worth. As students we learn to avoid as best we can the embarrassment of being wrong. Isn't it regrettable that this may be inconsistent with actually learning?
Can you imagine the generative and exciting learning environment that would result from a class that rewarded asking the best questions?
Why is it so vital to be right? Well to begin with, if you're not right, then you are indeed wrong, with all the accompanying sense of humiliation and failure.
I DON’T THINK YOU WILL EVER GET A CALL FROM A POLLING COMPANY ASKING YOU ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, BUT LET’S SEE HOW YOU WOULD ANSWER BEFORE CONTINUING ON WITH WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LIES BEHIND THE NUMBERS, AND WHY YOU SHOULD USE JUST A LITTLE COMMON SENSE!!
1. If you had a choice between having control of your own life, or giving control of your life to the government, which would you prefer?
2. Would you agree to the recommendation of a band on all guns, or the right to defend yourself against the unvetted immigrants from Syria who practice Sharia Law, and could care less about the rights of women and assimilating with what makes America great?
3. Would you prefer a President pushing a strong military defending and keeping Americans safe, or a President who will allocate the funds taken away from the military budget, to not only diminish our presence in the world, but to financially support the Illegal immigrants who ideology wise are not in line with the beliefs of what made America great, or the Constitution?
4. Are you going to continue to support companies who don’t back the ‘Will’ of the American People by pulling their support and assistance from the GOP convention? The outsider Trump threatens their Globalist, open border agenda to increase their market share in the world, and used bribes to buy the votes to the political elite to pass TPA!!!!
http://universalfreepress.com/2015/boehner-got-5-million-ryan-2-million-mcconnell-9-million-any-doubt-why-tpa-passed/
Oh, by the way, those companies are: Wells Fargo, U.P.S., Motorola, JP Morgan Chase, Ford Motors, Walgreens, Coca Cola, Hewlett Packard, and the list is probably growing as I type!
I could go on with the questions you will never get to hear from the half-truth pollsters in the world, but I think you know where I am going with this, and when you consider the fact that Hillary, because she’s afraid of the question, and resulting in her having to come up with another manufactured lie without a teleprompter to answer, because she can’t think on her feet, hasn’t had an open Press Conference in over 6 months!!
During every campaign season, a great deal of attention is properly devoted to condemning misleading television advertisements and nasty direct mail. But the telephone is now the primary means for delivering underhanded and anonymous attacks in political campaigns. This explosion in negative phoning--called "push polling"--has largely been ignored, even though it has become the rage in American campaigns, to the detriment of both civility and the truth. The push poll operates under the guise of legitimate survey research to spread lies, rumors, and innuendo about candidates. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of voters were telephoned and push polled during the 1994 elections. This effort dramatically increased the negativity in American politics.
Many voters and observers are disgusted and enraged by this tactic, but sleaze telephoning can work efficiently and effectively. Unless exposed and checked, it is bound to become standard ammunition in campaign arsenals across the United States. Only a sharp, sustained rebuke from the press and an informed public bent on punishing the perpetrators can stop the swift spread of this campaign cancer.
A push poll is a survey instrument containing questions that attempt to change the opinion of contacted voters, generally by divulging negative information about the opponent. In other words, it's campaigning under the guise of research.
A second type of push poll--the "agenda-driven survey"--is intended to produce a favorable result for the client-candidate, so that potential contributors and the press can be apprised of the candidate's "impending victory." Donors want to give hard-earned dollars to a likely winner, and the news media love to publish and air horse-race polls. With some luck, skillful pollsters can create a bandwagon effect for their candidate. The poll consists of reading biographical sketches--heavily biased against the opponent--and asking the respondent whom they will likely support. As you might guess, these polls are extremely poor predictors of actual outcomes.
The first two types of push polls seem almost harmless when compared with the third form, namely "negative persuasive" or "advocacy phoning." This push poll is not really a poll at all, but a form of targeted voter contact and canvassing. It doesn't target a random sample, but as many voters in a target population--union members, for example, or gun owners--as possible. The message is short--even a minute or less--and asks no demographical background information of the respondents. Respondents are first asked which candidate they favor. If the client-candidate is chosen, the respondent is simply placed on the get-out-the-vote list for election day. But if the respondent picks the opponent or says she is undecided, then a torrent of negativity is unleashed: "Would you still support this person if you learned that he [is a tax-evader, a baby-killer, or shoots newborn puppies for sport]?" As one frank push pollster explains, "What you're trying to do is mobilize voters against a candidate.... You're taking a specific audience and literally telling them why they shouldn't be voting for somebody."
Do you ever wonder why, back in 2007, Hillary just stepped aside to let Obama be the nominee for the Democratic, now Socialist, Party? Did you ever wonder why the Clinton Foundation, the Emails that opened the world to the secrets of our Military, endangered our national security, and why at the same time $6 Billion Dollars disappeared from Hillary’s State Department without a trace? Did you ever think about how the Clinton Foundation skimmed off the top of those same secrets and took bribes that were laundered through the Clinton Foundation by countries that practice the anti-woman practice by following Sharia Law then, and still do today? Do you ever wonder why our political elite took bribes to pass the TPA trade deal and expand and opened America’s markets, and borders to competition where labor is much cheaper and visas are issued in volume to have cultures, who won’t assimilate, freely come and go as they choose?
Facts, as often reported, may be based on statistics. Statistics are based on data — data which is inherently based on a collection of opinions. The danger of statistics is that what we often see reported as fact may not be as reliable as we are led to believe.
Data analysis can be a fuzzy science. But, when used properly, statistics can be invaluable for such purposes as predicting elections, quantifying public opinion, estimating trends, and forecasting the effects of policy change. So why the bad rap?
Political polls are the grease behind campaigns, election forecasts, favorability ratings, and a seemingly infinite number of media reports. Professional pollsters provide the raw data that campaign handlers knead, massage, twist, and spin to generate “fact-based” messages about their candidates or causes.
Not surprisingly, a vast some of money is spent on polling. Total polling expenditures in the 2012 presidential election was estimated at close to $50 million. While this figure represents only 2-3 percent of total campaign spending, it is still a staggering sum.
When survey results can be used favorably or to prove a point, they become the word of authority; when poll numbers are down, politicians dismiss the results.
Some polls, at best, offer nothing more than entertainment value. Others, like those conducted by Gallup, have been respected for over 75 years. How are these polls conducted? How are the statistics generated? And, how can the average voter look behind the numbers and determine the accuracy of polling results?
Survey researchers use specialized jargon to convey the reliability of survey results. Terms such as “statistically significant,” “margin of error,” and “confidence level” help describe and make inferences when analyzing data. These terms are used to extend limited poll results to the larger population.
The key question of whether a difference seen in a poll is “statistically significant” can be restated as “is the difference enough to allow for normal sampling error?” So what is this concept of sampling error, and why is there error at all?
We begin with a population, which, in many election polls, may be defined as likely voters. An actual election is not a sample at all; it is a census of those who voted. But, for polling purposes, it is neither practical nor cost-effective to speak with everyone in the target population; instead, a sample is drawn.
The underlying principle which assures polling accuracy is that those interviewed are representative of the target population and that each individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected for interview. This is the science of sampling technique, and when using a scientific sample, a relatively small number of individuals can be used to project to the target population.
The art of the “spin” is the domain of political consultants and strategists who take fact-based data and use it to benefit their candidate or cause. Always consider not only the source of polling data, but who is reporting it, and whether it is being selectively used to distort the complete story behind the numbers.
1) I will NOT vote for someone based on the color of their skin. If I did, that would make me a racist. I will also not vote for someone solely based on their gender. If I did that would make me a sexist.
2) Speaking of gender, I cannot support a woman who touts about women’s rights but she gladly takes money from men that treat women as property. The “Bill Hillary and Chelsea Foundation” has taken millions from countries in the Middle East that treat women like dogs. Hmmmm…. kind of hypocritical if you ask me…. don’t you think!?
4) On September 11th, 2012 The American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Killing Ambassador Chris Stephens, Officer Sean Smith, CIA Operatives-Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Secretary of State Officials (who were ordered by Hillary Clinton) denied several requests for additional security in Benghazi. It has also been reported that when nearby CIA operatives heard the cry for help-they were told to “Stand Down.” Why were they told to stand down? To me-it’s obvious. It was very close to the 2012 re-election of Obama. Obama was running on the fact that he had pretty much rid the world of terrorism…. if they would have sent guys in to help our men-it’d would have been a much more publicized situation. So they let our guys die. “Never leave a man behind” …. hmmm…. not in Hillary’s world.
6) Hillary turned a blind eye while her hubby Bill ran around with a convicted Pedophile-Jeffery Epstein. Jefferey is known to have been with girls suspected as young as 11 years old!!! Gross right?!! When I say “hang out” with-I mean…taking trips with Jefferey to foreign islands…one island known as “orgy island.” Now, instead of being a strong woman, bold and fearless in confronting this evil…. Hillary ignored the behavior. “Well…. guys will be guys” …. ummm no-not with children! I am a strong woman and I would NEVER put up with that shit!
9) So… I have yet to meet one person that can name me 3 major accomplishments Hillary has made that qualifies her to become the President of the United States…. I am not asking for a loooooong list…just name three! Oh and please for the love -don’t say “Russian Re-set” …. after that “re-set” Putin invaded the Ukraine…. mmmkay. And please don’t say our foreign policy has improved under her lead…. Ummm …. Hillary even refused to say Boko Haram was a terrorist organization…. huh…. I guess kidnapping girls and selling them into sex slavery doesn’t count ……oh and let’s remember Iraq caved to Islamic terrorism as well while she was Secretary of State…. ummm…have you checked out the state of the Middle East lately???
10) Lastly……With half of Americans receiving some kind of government assistance…. I got to say this is deeply saddening. America, the land of opportunity…. now the land of government handouts. It’s time to be inspired again! To get Americans working again, dreaming again, believing again…. but with Hillary…. it’ll be more of what we have had the last 7.5 years. More debt, more government over-reach, and less individual freedom.
I will not fall victim to trading my freedom for government enslavement through dependency…and I hope you won’t either.
1. Foreign Policy
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was reportedly one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, pushing for the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan and US intervention in Libya. She has also been a vocal proponent of the same drone war that has led to the deaths of 2,400 civilians. In her recent memoir, Hard Choices, she bragged about having presided over the imposition of "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian economy during her tenure as secretary of state. These crippling sanctions are a form of collective punishment and have benefited the wealthy only, while making life miserable for everyone else. In an interview with Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg in August 2014, she further outlined her views on Iran, staking out a maximalist position on Iranian nuclear enrichment, which effectively opens the door to military intervention. She also suggested that the United States should have done more to intervene in Syria, by, in her words, creating a "credible fighting force," while the lack of said force led to the rise of ISIS. In addition, she vociferously defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the assault on Gaza. Not surprisingly, her bellicose rhetoric has received praise from neocon luminary Robert Kagan. Senator Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war, a vote for which it took her more than a decade to express regret, was clearly not a temporary lapse in judgment.
Her recent foray into vague populist rhetoric notwithstanding, Clinton has long nurtured close ties to the financial sector. Over the course of her political career, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have been among her top political donors, in addition to giving heavily to the Clinton Foundation. In October 2013, Clinton received $400,000 to speak at two Goldman Sachs events and delivered what was described as a "reassuring message" to the assembled bankers. In all likelihood, a second Clinton administration would involve the appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts in the perpetually revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government. It's understandable then that her friends on Wall Street would be quick to shrug off her halfhearted attempt to shore up her left flank as anything but substantive. Nobody who was genuinely concerned with economic inequity would be hobnobbing with some of the same economic institutions whose reckless financial schemes helped engineer the 2008 economic collapse.
Hillary Clinton has a long history of being willing to serve the interests of large corporations. In 1976, while serving as legal counsel for the Rose Law Firm, she represented several Arkansas utilities companies that sued the state after a ballot initiative (sponsored by conservative boogeyman Acorn) passed that decreased utilities rates on Little Rock residents and increased them on businesses. In defending the utilities conglomerates, she argued that the initiative amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of property. The judge ruled in these companies' favor.
As Grist magazine reported, during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton took an active role in promoting hydro fracking worldwide through the Global Shale Gas Initiative. Clinton's State Department, and in some cases she personally, lobbied on behalf of companies like Chevron intent on expanding the practice, particularly in countries like Bulgaria and Romania where there was widespread public skepticism. This lobbying was met with mixed success, as Chevron eventually pulled out of Bulgaria due to a moratorium, while Romania's moratorium was repealed following US lobbying. Since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has continued to express support for the practice, which she outlined in a September 2014 speech to the National Clean Energy Summit. She has also remained disturbingly silent on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline.
If you have been outraged by the Obama administration's abysmal record on civil liberties - from its continuation of NSA spying, rampant secrecy and overzealous prosecution of whistleblowers - and would like to see a change in the post 9/11 status quo, then Hillary Clinton is the last candidate you should expect change from. In the Senate, she voted for the Patriot Act as well as its subsequent reauthorization. In an appearance in April 2014 at the University of Connecticut, she defended NSA surveillance and chastised whistleblower Edward Snowden, accusing him of supporting terrorism.
Clinton has a long history of cynical pandering on hot button social and culture war issues. As a senator, she frequently co-sponsored legislation that would make many on the left cringe. In 2005, she joined a bipartisan group of senators in signing onto the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which, according to the ACLU, would effectively have legalized discrimination. Later that same year, she introduced a bill that would have made flag burning a felony.
In addition, she has an extensive history of anti-video game demagoguery, something that wouldn't exactly endear her to younger voters. In July 2005, she called upon the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas over the "hot coffee mod" - a sexually explicit mini-game within GTA. This led to the game's rating being changed to Adults Only until Rockstar Games removed it from shelves. In November 2005, she introduced legislation that would have banned the sale of games rated M for mature to anybody under the age of 17. Two years later, she again introduced similar legislation in the middle of her first presidential bid.
No comments:
Post a Comment