100% of votes for Obama in a hundred precincts

i din't remember 2008, but in my precinct (louisiana) jill stein got 5 votes to trump's 2 and ms clinton's 660 odd. 100% for obama would not be unusual in a highly gerrymandered precinct.

"you can not fool all of the people all of the time" lincoln

 

under communism the farms of ukraine were collectivized info agribusiness.

most latin american countries called "communist," including cuba and nicaragua, practiced agrarian reform : returning the farms to the peons to whom they belonged before being displaced by yankee capitalists.

 

consider the effecys of gerrymandering on these gaussian predictions. we live in a real world where the gaming gf electorates is not rare.

the object of gerrymandering is to make sure that as many of the democrats as possible reside in 1 district while the others are solidly, but slightly, republican.

in other words, having 100% democratic precincts actually underlines the sucess of repub redistricting efforts.

 

But the Republican party does it constantly and without stint. Even just discussing something that MAY be socialist is enough for them.

 

There is no Capitalism or Socialism. There is only the Welfare State

And no, that is NOT a State where everyone is on" Welfare" (a harmful misnomer, it is more rightly called the "dole" in the UK)

 

That’s not the issue, the claim is that Sweden Denmark Norway are socialist. They are not and if you tell a Swede he is a socialist he will not agree. Swedes are sick of coming to America and being told they are socialists.

 

Collectivization is more like socialism.

Land reform is a different issue. Lots of capitalist countries have implemented land reforms, like Taiwan and Japan.

 

Gelman's criticisms were not well founded.

 

Back in 2008 few people would believe such things that befit Russia or Uganda can happen in US.

If this is true it should also apply to Russia. Would you then say that proofs of fraud in Russian elections published by Washington Post and National Academy of Sciences were fraudulent themselves?

They are 100% racist?

 

Funny how it is that as soon as it was pointed out that some districts didn't cast a single vote for Obama, that the OP and company
turned this into a thread about socialism rather than admit it's a bullcrap thread.

Oh well. Another day, another troll thread.

 

Your claim would be hard to verify.

 

Not at all. Just look up. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, not socialist or communist. And I have asked Swedes about this and they are very clear they are not socialist and don't like Americans claiming Sweden is socialist. Get on an international forum, ask a Swede. You have the worlds greatest resource at your fingertips, use it.

 

You mean you think it would be hard to find a Swede on the Internet and ask them?? Really???

 

Gerrymandering is irrelevant on precinct level. For you do not elect anyone in a single precinct. Gerry arranged precincts in congressional districts based on precinct voting statistics. But he did not change precincts boundaries.

 

I have not said ‘communist’ but yet again you seem to be another American conflating the two.
Asking an individual on a forum is hardly definitive.
The same as asking an American about socialism, they will deny it yet there are aspects of what I call socialism in all areas of American society.
Socialism is not a form of government but an aspect of life.
It is not ownership of the means of production, it is how a society deals with the fruits of production.

 

So if I found an individual Swede on the internet who said yes, Sweden is a hugely socialist society, that would prove a point?

 

of democrats are concentrated in a congressional district, and remember, state legislatures are gerrymandered as well, it is only natural for the out group (democrats are not a minority in louisiana, by the way, yet we have 1 congressional district out of 5 and repubs are very near veto proof in the state legislature.) to be further concentrated.

if you can not understand this, you do not need to be discussing statistics.

 

So you refuse to test your claims. A closed mind.

FIrst you claim its wrong to conflate socialism and communism then one sentence later you claim socialism is whatever you want it to be. Then you claim socialism is how society (govt) deals with the results of production - owning the results of production is owning the means of production.

You are clearly in over your head and floundering.

 

This may be one reason that God made a hell. It may seem unfair, but totally appropriate considering the natures of the inhabitants.

 

You could find a Swede and ask them. But first, you might want to find someone who can explain the principles of statistical inference to you.

 

I think I see your problem: you haven't figured out that verbal communication relies on agreed definitions.

It's an institutional arrangement of ownership.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. Do you know what a "dictionary" is?

 

A dictionary is a partial opinion as to the meaning of words.
How many definitions are there for the word 'set' for example?
How about the word 'gay'?
I disagree with you and believe you to be wrong.
I see something like the fruits of production used to improve the general social contract by paying for things like roads, or schools and so on.
Which happens in America as well as many other places.
I call that socialism.

 

How massive can fraud be in a district with only one voter?

Many Americans truly believe such claims, and yes, Nordics often shake their heard in disbelief when they listen to Americans talk about how "socialist" the Nordics are. And its Dems too, because people like Sanders call it "Democratic Socialism", when its "Social Democracy". Democratic socialism is socialism where government owns and operates means of production (Venezuela is getting pretty close), while in Social Democracies it is kept in private hands although they do have board social welfare programs.

 

They led to editor of Significance magazine, Julian Champkin, losing his job.

 

But unlike yours, it is an informed, expert opinion.

Those are called the "senses" of a word, and dictionaries usually list them in declining order of frequency. An argument that uses a word in more than one sense while pretending they are the same sense, as you do with "socialism," is an equivocation fallacy.

Because you are objectively wrong and I am objectively right.

Because you have decided it serves your purposes to use the English language incorrectly.