Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on February 13, 2012, 11:40:47 PM
-
I'm not a fan of the Dimond Brothers, but they have an excellent video on why the elections are rigged. It all makes sense. Just watch the video and see for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1#p/u/6/OynCgwmD-HM
-
Do you know anything about statistics SS?
I'm not saying the elections aren't rigged, but the Dimonds are definitely coming up short in this video.
-
Just saw this thread. Posted this on the other thread where you have the video:
"I haven't watched the entire video, but the Dimond guy is saying that it's imposible to determine a winner using exit polls, because the exit polls only collect 4/10ths of 1 percent of who has been voted for, and that is simply not enough to determine a winner. But Pelley says that Gungrich is projected, not determined, to be the winner. So it's an educated guess. "
-
Do you know anything about statistics SS?
I'm not saying the elections aren't rigged, but the Dimonds are definitely coming up short in this video.
Did you watch the entire video? You can question what I know about statistics, but to make a statement like that, you either didn't watch the whole video or don't have a thorough understanding of what the NWO is and how they can rig votes. If you understand what the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is and what their plans are, then you should also understand that they will NEVER let a man like Ron Paul win. I disagree with the Dimonds on a lot of things, but they are spot-on in this video.
I haven't watched the entire video, but the Dimond guy is saying that it's imposible to determine a winner using exit polls, because the exit polls only collect 4/10ths of 1 percent of who has been voted for, and that is simply not enough to determine a winner. But Pelley says that Gungrich is projected, not determined, to be the winner. So it's an educated guess.
My response on the other thread:
You need to watch the whole video to get it. And explain to me how you can project a winner with less than one percent? At the time they projected Gingrich as the winner, Romney was LEADING.
And I don't know if you saw this part of the video or not, but they show that both CBS AND FOX show the same number of people they interviewed in their exit polls (2,831 I believe was the number) out of over 601,000 voters. How can you project the winner after interviewing such a minority?
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
Did you watch the entire video? You can question what I know about statistics, but to make a statement like that, you either didn't watch the whole video or don't have a thorough understanding of what the NWO is and how they can rig votes. If you understand what the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is and what their plans are, then you should also understand that they will NEVER let a man like Ron Paul win.
Lol, Spiritus, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is EMBODIED by Ron Paul.
Old World Order = Catholic monarchies
nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr = Americanized democracies
Ron Paul is simply selling a rehashed, idealized version of Americanized democracy, and what is worse, one that relies on an even more perfervid brand of economic liberalism, which is exactly what got us here in the first place. You think in a time when Apple is availing itself of the services of Chinese wage slaves that MORE economic liberalism is the way to go? Tell me, how do you see more jobs being created by that? He is selling an enormous lie, even more flagrant than other politicians. It is not more economic liberalism that is needed, but more PROTECTION, more TARIFFS, more PENALTIES for employers who hire Indians for half a rupee to be our online bankers, etc.
The neo-cons and libertarians are as destructive when it comes to the economy as the liberals are when it comes to morals. If Ron Paul claims he will make abortion illegal, it's at least something to vote for, but I would be extremely surprised if it actually happened. Republicans claim to be against abortion and do nothing to stop it. That is usually just a sop thrown to the Protestant electoral base.
Ron Paul's wife is an Eastern Star; women don't get into that organization unless their husbands are Masons. Ron Paul's function in the whole globalist scheme is to siphon the discontent of the paranoiac patriots, just like SSPX's function on the devil's war against the Church is to keep traditionals allied to the anti-Christ sect and thus buy more time for destruction. It isn't surprising you have fallen for Ron Paul because he is the political equivalent of SSPX -- another error, but one that is dressed up in a way that is more convincing to some people.
Think of news anchors. Some news anchors are airheads in short skirts and no one takes them seriously. Then you have someone like Walter Cronkite, who appears old and wise, intellectual and with integrity, Yoda-like, etc. But both of them are selling the same junk. It's all about appearances, that is how people are fooled. Ron Paul looks more serious than other candidates, he has a great image that is down-home and American but with European polish, so that he doesn't come off as international jet-set "pretentious" -- a great fear of Americans -- like John Kerry, nor as a boorish hick like George W. Bush. He certainly looks more credible than Sarah Palin in hooker boots. But he's not.
Yes, the system is rigged. It is rigged to give you an illusion of choice, so there is no need to rig votes, whether or not they do anyway. Wake me up when I can vote for a real Catholic who is not compromised by having to appeal to a media-brainwashed mob, then I might be interested.
-
Correction: Ron Paul's wife is Eastern Star, but to be part of that, she needs some familial affiliation with a Mason, which isn't necessarily her husband; it could be her father. But it's interesting that nothing has turned up.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, there are plenty of people out there who aren't Masons who are selling a bill of goods.
-
Watching how the GOP primaries have been going, its clear that whomever is responsible for rigging the elections this year needs to make up his mind already. Last time, when they rigged the elections for Hillary and then gave it to Obama, instead, it became clear that the smoke-filled room wasn't filled with tobacco smoke.
-
Lol, Spiritus, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is EMBODIED by Ron Paul.
Baloney. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who would stop the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. You're mistaken if you think the other three would.
Ron Paul is simply selling a rehashed, idealized version of Americanized democracy, and what is worse, one that relies on an even more perfervid brand of economic liberalism, which is exactly what got us here in the first place. You think in a time when Apple is availing itself of the services of Chinese wage slaves that MORE economic liberalism is the way to go? Tell me, how do you see more jobs being created by that?
You need to get out of your pro-FED mindset before I even bother discussing the economy with you.
He is selling an enormous lie, even more flagrant than other politicians.
No, you're the one selling an enormous lie with that statement. Ron Paul is an honest candidate, the others aren't. Barack Obama is the biggest pathalogical liar there is, and it's sad to see you swing the lies on Paul rather than where they actually belong.
The neo-cons and libertarians are as destructive when it comes to the economy as the liberals are when it comes to morals. If Ron Paul claims he will make abortion illegal, it's at least something to vote for, but I would be extremely surprised if it actually happened. Republicans claim to be against abortion and do nothing to stop it. That is usually just a sop thrown to the Protestant electoral base.
Making abortion illegal through the federal level would be difficult, so he's going to turn it over to the states, and in turn most of the states will make it illegal.
Ron Paul's function in the whole globalist scheme is to siphon the discontent of the paranoiac patriots, just like SSPX's function on the devil's war against the Church is to keep traditionals allied to the anti-Christ sect and thus buy more time for destruction. It isn't surprising you have fallen for Ron Paul because he is the political equivalent of SSPX -- another error, but one that is dressed up in a way that is more convincing to some people.
You can't even discuss politics without discussing the SSPX. No one is talking about the Society. And I already told you I'm not an SSPXer. I like the Society, but don't consider myself an SSPXer.
Ron Paul looks more serious than other candidates, he has a great image that is down-home and American but with European polish, so that he doesn't come off as international jet-set "pretentious" -- a great fear of Americans -- like John Kerry, nor as a boorish hick like George W. Bush. He certainly looks more credible than Sarah Palin in hooker boots. But he's not.
You are seriously confused. The man isn't perfect, but he's better than the rest of them.
Yes, the system is rigged. It is rigged to give you an illusion of choice, so there is no need to rig votes, whether or not they do anyway. Wake me up when I can vote for a real Catholic who is not compromised by having to appeal to a media-brainwashed mob, then I might be interested.
They DO rig votes.
Look, to all those who have disagreed with me, you're smarter than this. When are you going to wake up? Perhaps you guys will wish you had listened to me when they put you in a FEMA camp and try to micro-chip you.
-
I apologize for being uncharitable to you in my last post, Raoul. I will be more charitable when further discussing this topic.
-
Interesting info on Ron, Raoul. I did not know and will research more now, thanks.
-
Yes, the system is rigged. It is rigged to give you an illusion of choice, so there is no need to rig votes, whether or not they do anyway. Wake me up when I can vote for a real Catholic who is not compromised by having to appeal to a media-brainwashed mob, then I might be interested.
I don't wanna do it! I don't wanna do it!!!........ *SNAP!* (Sigh.....)....... Ugh. I have to agree with you on this. Darn. I really wanted to like him to, but I also have the same consciousness; I don't think I can ignore it.
-
Ron Paul opposed NAFTA because there is no free trade about it. It is geared to empower corporations and make them more wealthy at the expense of citizens. To my knowledge, he also opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.
Ron Paul is the real threat to the elitist establishment.
-
Ron Paul opposed NAFTA because there is no free trade about it. It is geared to empower corporations and make them more wealthy at the expense of citizens. To my knowledge, he also opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.
Ron Paul is the real threat to the elitist establishment.
:applause:
-
This video should be renamed "Why you shouldn't listen to the Dimond brothers"
Especially for those who entrust their eternal soul to these people.
I know a thing or two about statistical sampling, let me tell you it is flat out wrong to say that a fair estimate of the true percentage cannot be arrived at from a relatively small sample size, a certain standard error and some reasonable assumptions. Every poll contains a margin of uncertainty which will be reported. I can even tell you the formula for the model you would use and the theorem that would apply.
And, just skimming through the video, wasn't it Romney who was projected winner yet Gingrich who turned out actual winner? Hardly a case of rigged results.
-
This video should be renamed "Why you shouldn't listen to the Dimond brothers"
I normally don't, as I've already said. But they are right in this video.
I know a thing or two about statistical sampling, let me tell you it is flat out wrong to say that a fair estimate of the true percentage cannot be arrived at from a relatively small sample size, a certain standard error and some reasonable assumptions. Every poll contains a margin of uncertainty which will be reported. I can even tell you the formula for the model you would use and the theorem that would apply.
So in the national election in 2008 when over 129 million voted, you're telling me that they could know the results from interviewing just over 6,000 people? And at the very moment the polls close? That is absurd.
And, just skimming through the video, wasn't it Romney who was projected winner yet Gingrich who turned out actual winner? Hardly a case of rigged results.
Funny how most people who have commented on this haven't really watched much of the video. If you won't watch the video, why bother commenting? And no, Gingrich was projected the winner in South Carolina while Romney was leading, and of course Gingrich went on to win.
-
Why does the video have to be so long though? Can't he condense everything into a couple minutes?
-
Why does the video have to be so long though? Can't he condense everything into a couple minutes?
You can watch some, stop, and come back to it later. Or you can skip the parts where he repeats himself.
-
I normally don't, as I've already said.
Sure, I know that.
So in the national election in 2008 when over 129 million voted, you're telling me that they could know the results from interviewing just over 6,000 people? And at the very moment the polls close? That is absurd.
The important thing in any poll is its margin of error, and the method of sampling employed. It goes without saying that the more persons polled relative to the persons considered, the more accurate the estimate is, but do you, on the other hand, think that, say, any marketing research company, which is looking for nationwide trends across 300 million people interviews each one or even a few million people?
No, they also make estimates to the closest measure based on the responses of a few ten thousand people. You'd have to compare the final results to the projected results to see what percentage they were off by, and I'll bet there would be at least some divergence.
Funny how most people who have commented on this haven't really watched much of the video.
Well, I tried, but Dimond's voice has a soporific effect, if you know what I mean. Besides it seemed to me from the other comments that the major point of the video was the above, and was flawed, so why go further?
-
The important thing in any poll is its margin of error, and the method of sampling employed. It goes without saying that the more persons polled relative to the persons considered, the more accurate the estimate is, but do you, on the other hand, think that, say, any marketing research company, which is looking for nationwide trends across 300 million people interviews each one or even a few million people?
No, they also make estimates to the closest measure based on the responses of a few ten thousand people. You'd have to compare the final results to the projected results to see what percentage they were off by, and I'll bet there would be at least some divergence.
It's not really about the margin, the point is the person they project will win ALWAYS wins. And the stations say on their website that they interview the same number of people.
-
Just to pick up on the statistical commentary. Any kind of statistical analysis of a vote is fraught with bias and confounding. Basically a waste of time and should only be treated a source of disinformation.
In any case, elections do not really need to be rigged. If you come from a background that is at odds with the powers-that-be, (say for example you're a traditional Catholic who decides to run for office) you have zero chance of getting even to the first debate.
In other English speaking countries it is the same. Look at the profiles of the members of parliament in your country and dig a little. They are likely all to be members of a service club (Rotary, Lions, Apex, whatever), directly members of a masonic lodge, or some other front organization such as the Mormons. I could imagine that a member of Opus Dei might run for office also, as they are no less under the thumb. But if you aren't, you can't. Go ahead and try, prove me wrong - I'd be delighted!
Politics today is like the British police force in the early 1900's - all masons.
-
It's not really about the margin, the point is the person they project will win ALWAYS wins.
DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!
The media more than projected, they declared Romney the winner in Iowa. Turns out it was Santorum. Oops.