Seth Rich story resurfacing

[Grooveriding]

Not even worth bothering. This nut has spent the bulk of his participation in this thread getting made a fool of repeatedly, but still keeps coming back for more. A fanatical level of persistence to maintain ignorance and idiocy.

When Comey testifies next week, and if he confirms that Trump lied again, expect this latest bit of propaganda to get turned up to 11 in the space in their minds they've rented out to be told what to think.

 

[Jhhnn]

You seem to have trouble with debate.

When you are calling someone a liar, you need proof. Not a hunch. CNN has been caught publishing lies. Wikileaks has not. Your "hunch" is meaningless.

I specifically allowed that Assange might be telling the truth as he knows it. He never claimed that Rich was the source, anyway. That's from Fox & Breitbart-

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/16/seth-rich-wikileaks-emails-fbi/

From Wikileaks-

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763565863861616640/photo/1

The difference is obvious.

 

[xthetenth]

Wow, take a look at that strawman. When have I ever claimed anything about Russian metadata? What exactly are you smoking?

Maybe respond to facts I actual use in my argument instead of trying to knock down a strawman, okay mr tenth?

You are referring to every single email. That means that you are claiming every single email contributes to your point. If you have any ones in particular that you think show your claims, then go ahead. In the meantime, I'll mock you about how you're waving a number inflated by lunch orders around as if it's somehow impressive. Do you think my 5k emails at work are proof of DNC collusion? No, they aren't, because they don't contain anything relevant whatsoever.

If you're going to accuse people of setting up strawmen, at least have an idea of what the words you're using mean.

 

[fskimospy]

No. 538 predicted a Trump loss. And they WERE WRONG. They will be wrong again. You clearly are brain damaged if you somehow think they can't be wrong again because they miss-predicted the 2016 election. Is that your stance?

You apparently don't know how probability works. You're either being paid to post this shit or you're one of the stupidest people who has ever posted here.

 

[fskimospy]

You seem to have trouble with debate.

When you are calling someone a liar, you need proof. Not a hunch. CNN has been caught publishing lies. Wikileaks has not. Your "hunch" is meaningless.

Remember, we have caught you posting lies here repeatedly but you have refused to own up to it. Calling other people liars while being an obvious liar yourself is pretty poor form.

 

[brycejones]

This thread is really funny with a certain lying sack of chiapets on ignore.

 

[Chiropteran]

I specifically allowed that Assange might be telling the truth as he knows it. He never claimed that Rich was the source, anyway. That's from Fox & Breitbart-

You seem to be unaware of all the details and now you are making stupid assumptions. Assange doesn't need to tell us Seth Rich is the source. He has given us facts that lead to that conclusion. And there is absolutely no way for the details Assange has given to apply to "Russian hackers".\

 

[Chiropteran]

Remember, we have caught you posting lies here repeatedly but you have refused to own up to it. Calling other people liars while being an obvious liar yourself is pretty poor form.

This is called slander. I've never lied on these boards.

I can't be held responsible if your understanding of the English language and grammar is so poor that you misunderstand some of my posts. Maybe you should stay off the internet if you can't communicate with adults.

 

[Amused]

It's always amazing to me how much any conspiracy theory sounds like flat earthers.

In fact, I often use flat earth arguments as examples of bad logic in other conspiracy theory debates.

It's like a laundry list of logical fallacies.

 

[Chiropteran]

You apparently don't know how probability works. You're either being paid to post this shit or you're one of the stupidest people who has ever posted here.

Look at this absolute moron who thinks "probability" means that there is NO CHANCE of 538 being wrong.

The base definition of the word lets you know that there is a chance they are right and a chance they are wrong. How you can continue to argue against me while being so incredibly wrong just amazes me.

Please go see a doctor before you die of brain cancer.

 

[Chiropteran]

It's always amazing to me how much any conspiracy theory sounds like flat earthers.

In fact, I often use flat earth arguments as examples of bad logic in other conspiracy theory debates.

It's like a laundry list of logical fallacies.

Awesome, Amused has come around and now realizes the russian connection narrative is utter bullshit. Thanks for taking the red pill dude.

 

[Amused]

Awesome, Amused has come around and now realizes the russian connection narrative is utter bullshit. Thanks for taking the red pill dude.

Yeah, no, I was talking about you.

 

[Chiropteran]

Yeah, no, I was talking about you.

Don't worry dude, I am not falling for the conspiracy bullshit, I know the Russian interference was a non-factor.

Thanks for looking out for me though.

 

[jman19]

Don't worry dude, I am not falling for the conspiracy bullshit, I know the Russian interference was a non-factor.

Thanks for looking out for me though.

I guess you know more than the FBI and DoJ. You should go tell them all about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Look at this absolute moron who thinks "probability" means that there is NO CHANCE of 538 being wrong.

The base definition of the word lets you know that there is a chance they are right and a chance they are wrong. How you can continue to argue against me while being so incredibly wrong just amazes me.

Please go see a doctor before you die of brain cancer.

This is hilarious: you're a poster child for the Dunning-Krueger effect. You're so incompetent that you don't even know the depths of your own incompetence.

Fivethirtyeight gave a probability distribution based on 10,000 estimates of the election. In those estimates Trump won somewhere around 30% of the time. If you think someone tells you there's a ~1/3 chance of something happening and when it happens that made the person wrong you simply have no idea what you're talking about. By your logic if you flipped a coin twice and I said the probability of getting heads twice was 25% and then it happened, I would somehow be wrong for telling you that. Does that sound smart to you?

The way to tell if a model is right or wrong is by testing it and seeing if real outcomes fall within the range of uncertainty that the model puts out. For 538's model, the results easily did. If you want to look at models that were wrong you should look at Sam Wang's model. As for this, you should be honorable enough to admit you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about. I think the probability of you doing that is less than 10%. Prove me wrong!

 

[Chiropteran]

This is hilarious: you're a poster child for the Dunning-Krueger effect. You're so incompetent that you don't even know the depths of your own incompetence.

Fivethirtyeight gave a probability distribution based on 10,000 estimates of the election. In those estimates Trump won somewhere around 30% of the time. If you think someone tells you there's a ~1/3 chance of something happening and when it happens that made the person wrong you simply have no idea what you're talking about. By your logic if you flipped a coin twice and I said the probability of getting heads twice was 25% and then it happened, I would somehow be wrong for telling you that. Does that sound smart to you?

The way to tell if a model is right or wrong is by testing it and seeing if real outcomes fall within the range of uncertainty that the model puts out. For 538's model, the results easily did. If you want to look at models that were wrong you should look at Sam Wang's model. As for this, you should be honorable enough to admit you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about. I think the probability of you doing that is less than 10%. Prove me wrong!

Look at this moron trying to convince me of what I already said. This whole thread started when I pointed out that 538 saying Hillary would win the primary proves absolutely NOTHING. They calculate a chance, and they will not be correct 100% of the time.

It's amazing that you are now arguing for my side and you don't even seem to realize it, you really are a stupid troll.

 

[fskimospy]

Look at this moron trying to convince me of what I already said. This whole thread started when I pointed out that 538 saying Hillary would win the primary proves absolutely NOTHING. They calculate a chance, and they will not be correct 100% of the time.

It's amazing that you are now arguing for my side and you don't even seem to realize it, you really are a stupid troll.

No. You said 538 was wrong, which shows a basic lack of understanding of what probability is. If you think I'm on your side when I'm explicitly telling you that not only are you wrong but you are totally incompetent then you're dumber than I thought you were. This would be an impressive achievement, as I already think you are extremely dumb.

 

[Chiropteran]

You are an idiot. 538 predicted a Hillary win. They were wrong. If Hillary won, you would be saying 538 made a correct prediction and nobody would be arguing about it. They made an incorrect prediction, end of story.

 

[Maxima1]

The way to tell if a model is right or wrong is by testing it and seeing if real outcomes fall within the range of uncertainty that the model puts out. For 538's model, the results easily did. If you want to look at models that were wrong you should look at Sam Wang's model. As for this, you should be honorable enough to admit you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about. I think the probability of you doing that is less than 10%. Prove me wrong!

How can you say Sam Wang's model was wrong? His gave Trump around 10-15% chance. He won despite a 2% deficit in the popular vote. Nate's model probably gave that about only a 1% chance of occurring.

 

[Pens1566]

I'd really like to think he's just trolling, but I don't know anymore. I've seen smarter appliances.

 

[fskimospy]

You are an idiot. 538 predicted a Hillary win. They were wrong. If Hillary won, you would be saying 538 made a correct prediction and nobody would be arguing about it. They made an incorrect prediction, end of story.

There are not enough facepalms. I like how you seemed to actually think I was arguing your side when I was in fact telling you that you were an idiot. Apparently you're not only too dumb to understand 538, you're too dumb to understand other people talking about 538. 538 never predicted a Clinton win, they gave a probability that she would win. The way to see if 538's probabilities are wrong is to look at the total scope of their predictions and see if they are 'correct' roughly in line with the probabilities they give.

Like I said, by your logic if you went to flip a coin twice and I told you the probability of two heads was 25% and therefore the probability of 'not two heads' was 75%, if two heads came up I would be wrong for telling you something that was undeniably correct. Things with a 1/3 chance happen all the time. Stop and think for a second how stupid your argument is.

 

[fskimospy]

How can you say Sam Wang's model was wrong? His gave Trump around 10-15% chance. He won despite a 2% deficit in the popular vote. Nate's model probably gave that about only a 1% chance of occurring.

No, the PEC gave Clinton a 99% probability of winning right before the election. 95% if they relaxed their assumptions some, but their baseline prediction was 99%. He did mention that probabilities above 90% are hard to estimate, but that doesn't change the fundamental wrongness of his model, which drastically underestimated the uncertainty present. If I remember right as I think I mentioned to you before, his primary failure was thinking that polling errors were not correlated between states, which is a foolish assumption.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/

There’s been buzz about the Princeton Election Consortium’s win probability for Clinton, which for some time has been in the 98-99% range. Tonight let me walk everyone through how we arrive at this level of confidence. tl;dr: With a more conservative assumption (see discussion) the PEC approach gives a probability of more like 95%.

EDIT: Also, you are incorrect about 538's estimate. They gave Trump about a 10% chance of winning the election while losing the popular vote a week before the election happened. As the polls tightened between 10/31 and the election, it's likely this probability was even higher in their model by election night.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#scenarios

 

[Maxima1]

No, the PEC gave Clinton a 99% probability of winning right before the election. 95% if they relaxed their assumptions some, but their baseline prediction was 99%. He did mention that probabilities above 90% are hard to estimate, but that doesn't change the fundamental wrongness of his model, which drastically underestimated the uncertainty present. If I remember right as I think I mentioned to you before, his primary failure was thinking that polling errors were not correlated between states, which is a foolish assumption.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/

I showed you that link last time. That was my point. Look at the charts. Obviously what's supported by recent elections is the +- 1.5% margins. So his model gives somewhere around 85-90% or so. People were worried when he posted that before the election came because it was obvious that the 99% wasn't supported.

No, the PEC gave Clinton a 99% probability of winning right before the election.

lol 538 gave Trump losing pop vote by 2% but still winning probably only about a 1% chance.

 

[Amused]

Why has this thread digressed from the absurd Seth Rich conspiracy theory whose roots are easily identified and debunked?

And the obviousness of the current timing? This thread is a perfect example of the very derailing this entirely fabricated story is vainly trying to do

 

[fskimospy]

I showed you that link last time. Look at the graphs. Obviously what's supported by recent elections is the +- 1.5% margins. So his model gives somewhere around 85-90% or so. People were worried when he posted that before the election came because it was obvious that the 99% wasn't supported.

lol 538 gave Trump losing pop vote by 2% but still winning probably only about a 1% chance.

Well it sounds like you need to talk to Mr. Wang about this because HE stated that it was either a 99% or 95% probability many times. You appear to be misreading the article you are citing as well as he explicitly states that taking an average of recent elections is a bad idea:

Note that these errors are not symmetric: there seems to be a tendency for the winner to overperform his final Meta-Margin. So it is not clear that Meta-Margin errors are symmetrically distributed. That means we can’t just use the average overperformance – that might be an overestimate of the amount of error that would work against the front-runner. However, the sample is too small to be sure about this.

He states right after that part that he was NOT using a 1.5% error term in his model:

To turn the Meta-Margin into a hard probability, I had to estimate the likely error on the Meta-Margin. For the home stretch, the likely-error fomula in my code assumed an Election Eve error of 0.8% 0.5% on average, following a t-distribution (parameter=3 d.f.). The t-distribution is a way of allowing for “longer-tail” outcomes than the usual bell-shaped curve.

You are claiming things about his model that he explicitly states are not the case. I would suggest you go back and read your own link more carefully.