Court has ruled Emergencies Act during Trucker convoy was unconstitutional

[roddermac]

?

You just seem to "keep bringing up the pole"

 

[Frankfooter]

You just seem to "keep bringing up the pole"

At first I thought you were just trying to troll pole vs poll but now I think maybe you just aren't that bright.

 

[Skoob]

Its really quite funny when you get cornered, declare you won't answer, claim I didn't answer something then declare you won a debate.
Its a daily activity for you, don't you get tired of it?

You don't understand how polling works in Canada.
Whoops.

You just described yourself. Lol!

I asked you what's the proper sample size for a population of 40 million?...you can't answer.
That question implies I understand how polling works.

You distraction implies you lost another argument.

 

[Frankfooter]

You just described yourself. Lol!

I asked you what's the proper sample size for a population of 40 million?...you can't answer.
That question implies I understand how polling works.

You distraction implies you lost another argument.

No, skoob.

I posted a poll then you tried to make fun of it based on the poll size. Then when I challenged you on what sample sizes you think are normal for polls you went into troll mode.

Where you still are now.

 

[Skoob]

No, skoob.

I posted a poll then you tried to make fun of it based on the poll size. Then when I challenged you on what sample sizes you think are normal for polls you went into troll mode.

Where you still are now.

I asked you if a sample size of 1600 for a poll of 40 million would be accurate and you didn't answer.

instead, you troll by answering questions with questions and then distract to blur your failure.

Every time. Everyone here sees it. Everyone here knows it. Your distraction is legendary.

You just don't like it when people use your tactics on you. Then you start crying and calling people trolls.

I can write your script because it's so predictable.

 

[Valcazar]

Should it be enough to punt any administration on its own? Arguably yes. Even in the world of crime freezing peoples assets is a fairly big deal. That they didn’t meet the legal threshold to employ it in the first place, is a bigger deal. Forest for the trees imo. EMAs are the nuclear option.

The bank freezing is the one that needs to be ridden down the hardest, in my opinion.

I agree with the judge in paragraph 358:

Of particular concern from a section 1 justification perspective is that there was no
standard applied to determine whether someone should be the target of the measures or process
to allow them to question that determination. As described by Superintendent Beaudoin in cross-
examination, it was all informal and ad hoc.

Freezing bank accounts can be justified, but the way it was done was a shit show and that can't be ignored.
It was, in fact, more of an ad hoc clusterfuck than I originally thought. Some kind of update to the law specifying how that can be done in the future and what safeguards would be put in place to prevent it spilling out of control are necessary.

The reality is they had weeks to come up with a plan and contingencies. Weeks in which lawyers, advisors, ( like Bill Blair) and more would have conferred. They got it badly wrong.

Lots of people are going to disagree with that last part - including Justice Mosley.

I had and continue to have considerable sympathy for those in government who were confronted with
this situation. Had I been at their tables at that time, I may have agreed that it was necessary to
invoke the Act. And I acknowledge that in conducting judicial review of that decision, I am
revisiting that time with the benefit of hindsight and a more extensive record of the facts and law
than that which was before the GIC.

He acknowledges that this legal analysis isn't one that was even possible at the time, but should still be undertaken because it serves the public interest for a court to review what actions were taken and weigh in on their effects.

Some can choose to blame Ford, but welcome to politics and reality, you made the bed..How much does the Liberal Party even try to work with Cons? In the house?. Fuck forget actually working with the Cons, like people simply never answer questions here and just deflect. One rule for thee, but not for us I guess

At the end of the day. They chose and they alone, to use a governments very heavy, very broad powers under an Emergency Act. When realistically all they had to do was say “So what,,we will deflate their tires, give them the time day”.

And they - or another government - may have to do so again, which was a major reason Justice Mosley weighed in.

 

[Frankfooter]

I asked you if a sample size of 1600 for a poll of 40 million would be accurate and you didn't answer.

instead, you troll by answering questions with questions and then distract to blur your failure.

Every time. Everyone here sees it. Everyone here knows it. Your distraction is legendary.

You just don't like it when people use your tactics on you. Then you start crying and calling people trolls.

I can write your script because it's so predictable.

Yes, polls using sample sizes that large are the norm and generally produce polls with +/- 5% ranges.
You've taken pages here and refused to do 5 minute google search to check, or, more likely, you did check and found you were wrong so decided to pretend you didn't.

Regardless, you're wrong and pushing an idiotic claim that you could have check up on but decided to act like a troll instead.

Just google 'poll sample sizes Canada'.

 

[Skoob]

Yes, polls using sample sizes that large are the norm and generally produce polls with +/- 5% ranges.
You've taken pages here and refused to do 5 minute google search to check, or, more likely, you did check and found you were wrong so decided to pretend you didn't.

Regardless, you're wrong and pushing an idiotic claim that you could have check up on but decided to act like a troll instead.

Just google 'poll sample sizes Canada'.

I did multiple searches on sample sizes before I even responded that confirmed my thinking.

You think I would post without first confirming like you do?

And before you predictably ask me to prove it...how about you prove it...I know I can...over to you.

 

[Frankfooter]

I did multiple searches on sample sizes before I even responded that confirmed my thinking.

You think I would post without first confirming like you do?

And before you predictably ask me to prove it...how about you prove it...I know I can...over to you.

Sure you did.

If you had, you would have admitted you were wrong.

 

[benstt]

I didn't know that 1,265 people speak for all of Canada?

If people want to argue that this survey is improper, the sample size if not the route to success. This particular survey lists the following specifications:

The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from Feb. 11-13, 2022 among a representative randomized sample of 1,622 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding. The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by ARI.

Anyone can use sample size calculators to duplicate the result. The Survey Monkey calculator comes up with a minimum sample size of 1,537 with those parameters with a population of 40 million, so the Angus Reid survey size of 1622 sounds sufficient..

Sample Size Calculator | SurveyMonkey

Calculate sample size with our free calculator and explore practical examples and formulas in our guide to find the best sample size for your study.

www.surveymonkey.com

In fact, they show the formula used, and if anyone looks at it carefully, they can see that for large values of the population N, the sample size doesn't change that much. It depends more on the margin of error (+-2.5%) and confidence level (19 time out of of 20 aka 95%.)

Random sampling is a powerful tool and the samples don't need to be nearly as large as people might assume.

 

[Skoob]

Sure you did.

If you had, you would have admitted you were wrong.

Why would I admit that I'm wrong if I have proof that I'm right?

I'm still waiting for your proof.

How about we give it one last chance for you to prove me wrong in your next response and if you can't, it would be another lost argument for you.

Go ahead...show me your proof.

 

[Skoob]

If people want to argue that this survey is improper, the sample size if not the route to success. This particular survey lists the following specifications:

The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from Feb. 11-13, 2022 among a representative randomized sample of 1,622 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding. The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by ARI.

Anyone can use sample size calculators to duplicate the result. The Survey Monkey calculator comes up with a minimum sample size of 1,537 with those parameters with a population of 40 million, so the Angus Reid survey size of 1622 sounds sufficient..

Sample Size Calculator | SurveyMonkey

Calculate sample size with our free calculator and explore practical examples and formulas in our guide to find the best sample size for your study.

www.surveymonkey.com

In fact, they show the formula used, and if anyone looks at it carefully, they can see that for large values of the population N, the sample size doesn't change that much. It depends more on the margin of error (+-2.5%) and confidence level (19 time out of of 20 aka 95%.)

Random sampling is a powerful tool and the samples don't need to be nearly as large as people might assume.

From the article:

• If you want a smaller margin of error, you must have a larger sample size given the same population.
• The higher the sampling confidence level you want to have, the larger your sample size will need to be.

On a survey that essentially asks very few questions, especially when the answers would be yes or no, the margin of error used should be less than what was used here. Probably no more than 2% and I would argue closer to 1% would be more suitable.

Therefore the sample size would be larger.

 

[Frankfooter]

From the article:

• If you want a smaller margin of error, you must have a larger sample size given the same population.
• The higher the sampling confidence level you want to have, the larger your sample size will need to be.

On a survey that essentially asks very few questions, especially when the answers would be yes or no, the margin of error used should be less than what was used here. Probably no more than 2% and I would argue closer to 1% would be more suitable.

Therefore the sample size would be larger.

You were just proven wrong, standard polling is done to +/- of 5%.
The poll posted used a standard polling size, you tried to mock it for using a standard polling size.
Since then you've repeatedly refused to admit you are wrong.

Just man up and admit you were wrong.

 

[Skoob]

You were just proven wrong, standard polling is done to +/- of 5%.
The poll posted used a standard polling size, you tried to mock it for using a standard polling size.
Since then you've repeatedly refused to admit you are wrong.

Just man up and admit you were wrong.

Says the guy who couldn't prove his point and is now wrong again.

There's no such thing as a "standard polling size".

So maybe educate yourself before depending on others to argue for you because it could backfire on you like it just did.

 

[Frankfooter]

Says the guy who couldn't prove his point and is now wrong again.

There's no such thing as a "standard polling size".

So maybe educate yourself before depending on others to argue for you because it could backfire on you like it just did.

Yes, there are standard sizes based on the margin of error and size of your polling group.
Its a formula.

You really just can't ever admit you are wrong, can you?
That's what identifies you as a troll.

 

[squeezer]

Says the guy who couldn't prove his point and is now wrong again.

There's no such thing as a "standard polling size".

So maybe educate yourself before depending on others to argue for you because it could backfire on you like it just did.

You are really looking poorly in this thread. I'd either call it quits and admit I am wrong or just log off for the day and hope everyone forgets and stops laughing as they read along. I'm just trying to help you brother.

 

[Valcazar]

Usually when a poll is conducted for an entire country that has a population of close to 40 million people, the sample size would be much larger.

No it wouldn't.
You might want it to be larger because you want to have better cross tabs and the ability to look at sub groups and get some good info on them in particular, but for a general main question, especially one which isn't hovering around 50%, 1100 or so is probably enough to get a decently accurate answer.

 

[Valcazar]

1622 is not even close to every single Canadian. I bet you they only polled people in Trudeau's riding.

If they did poll only in Trudeau's riding, that would be a terrible poll and yes, it could be rightly ignored.
But I believe the one cited here was an Agnus Reid poll? They aren't likely to make that kind of ridiculous error, unless they have radically degraded in quality since last I checked.

 

[Skoob]

No it wouldn't.
You might want it to be larger because you want to have better cross tabs and the ability to look at sub groups and get some good info on them in particular, but for a general main question, especially one which isn't hovering around 50%, 1100 or so is probably enough to get a decently accurate answer.

You are forgetting the margin of error, the number of questions being asked, and the yes/no nature of the answers being provided. The margin of error would and should be less than 2% and not 2.5% as used in that poll. It's not like each question had multiple possible answers as for example in some political polls whereby all candidates are listed.
I'll leave it to you to figure out what the sample size should be in that case using the margin of error.

Further, no context was provided as to where the questions were asked and to who? That is information that is usually provided when making such a claim about the poll result.

For example, when you hear that 90% of teachers voted for a strike, that doesn't mean that all teachers voted. It means "90% of those who voted".

Context is everything.

This poll should have used a margin of error that is somewhere between 1-2% The sample size would have had to be bigger for better representation.

 

[roddermac]

If they did poll only in Trudeau's riding, that would be a terrible poll and yes, it could be rightly ignored.
But I believe the one cited here was an Agnus Reid poll? They aren't likely to make that kind of ridiculous error, unless they have radically degraded in quality since last I checked.

Like I said 1622 does not represent all of Canada or even close to no matter who did the poll.