Court has ruled Emergencies Act during Trucker convoy was unconstitutional

[Frankfooter]

Which court? None of your accusations held up in court...but keep up the entertainment....Hague has spoken...

The ICJ case has been delayed while they deal with the accusations of genocide.

Case Before International Court of Justice Will Expose Israel’s Prolonged Illegal Policies, Permanent Observer Tells Palestinian Rights Committee | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Highlighting the international community’ paralysis and lack of progress to hold Israel accountable for its actions, the Permanent Observer reported on preparations for the case being brought before the International Court of Justice that exposes Israel’s prolonged illegal practices and policies...

press.un.org

But the UN ruled.

Commission of Inquiry finds that the Israeli occupation is unlawful under international law

New York (20 October 2022) -- There are reasonable grounds to conclude that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is now unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli Government’s de-facto annexation policies, according to the first report to the General...

www.ohchr.org

 

[richaceg]

The ICJ case has been delayed while they deal with the accusations of genocide.

Case Before International Court of Justice Will Expose Israel’s Prolonged Illegal Policies, Permanent Observer Tells Palestinian Rights Committee | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Highlighting the international community’ paralysis and lack of progress to hold Israel accountable for its actions, the Permanent Observer reported on preparations for the case being brought before the International Court of Justice that exposes Israel’s prolonged illegal practices and policies...

press.un.org

But the UN ruled.

Commission of Inquiry finds that the Israeli occupation is unlawful under international law

New York (20 October 2022) -- There are reasonable grounds to conclude that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is now unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli Government’s de-facto annexation policies, according to the first report to the General...

www.ohchr.org

That doeesnt mean shit...unless they say it straight...

 

[Frankfooter]

That doeesnt mean shit...unless they say it straight...

 

[richaceg]

Un didn't state Israel committed apartheid...show me where they said it....you can't...

 

[Frankfooter]

Un didn't state Israel committed apartheid...show me where they said it....you can't...

Now you're moving the goal posts over there?
As long as you're now admitting that Israel has been occupying Gaza.
Well, ok then.....

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert

Calling on the international community to accept and adopt the recent findings in his report, an independent human rights expert said on Friday that “apartheid is being practiced by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory”.

news.un.org

 

[Valcazar]

But by the same token, and I’m jumping in here a wee bit, without reading the past 2 pages for context. and not taking “either side”.

That is the problem with small data sets isn’t it? Whether it’s one quarter, or one year or 5 years, whether the topic is violent crime, growth in GDP, or trends in political violence.

And it’s also to a lessor degree the problem with polls ( what are the questions being asked, and how are they worded)….and or, what is either side cherry picking for the baseline.

Of course.
Polls are quite limited as tools.
Especially any given single poll.

The fact of weighting alone means that potential interpreter differences will be more than the margin of error in a poll like this.
The sample size here is fine. 2.5% MOE is perfectly good for a poll like this.
The odds are the numbers will have moved more than that in a week or two just because polls are snapshots in time and views change.

Weighting, question structure, recruitment...
That's why poll aggregation has become such a big thing - wash out a lot of the noise. (Also, following the same pollster on an issue over time. The numbers may be fuzzy but the trend lines will usually be informative.)

The fact is, this one poll is only mildly informative.
What were the other polls showing at the time and what were the polls showing over time as the protest progressed?
I don't think this poll was an outlier.

I only came into this because I find complaining about an MOE of 2.5% and demanding a sample size that can get you down to 2 or 1% when the results are in the 70s an utterly bizarre position to take.
It's so far past the law of diminishing returns.

 

[Valcazar]

By definition:
The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in the results of a survey. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one should have that a poll result would reflect the result of a census of the entire population.

So why wouldn't you lower the margin of error if it means having a more accurate result considering the gravity of the situation, considering you are trying to speak for an entire country (even though the incident was located in only one main area), and considering the focus is to show if Canadians supported it or not, i.e. yes or no?

Because the difference between 2.5 and 2, or even 1, is meaningless when your answer is in the 70s.
It's utterly meaningless precision.

There is no benefit to having a more accurate result here, especially since weighting issues and even just the normal drift of asking the same question a week later is going to be more than that.
What's important is WAY MORE PEOPLE are on one side of the question than the other.
That's all you need here.

 

[Skoob]

Its a special title that you only get with acts of full on racial supremacy in the form of genocide.

You mean like Biden?

Because the difference between 2.5 and 2, or even 1, is meaningless when your answer is in the 70s.
It's utterly meaningless precision.

There is no benefit to having a more accurate result here, especially since weighting issues and even just the normal drift of asking the same question a week later is going to be more than that.
What's important is WAY MORE PEOPLE are on one side of the question than the other.
That's all you need here.

Not meaningless. Lower margin of error would require a larger sample size.

My argument was for a larger sample size.

You can't look at the outcome after the fact to base your argument because that's not my point...this should have been done before the poll regardless.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Lawsuits have been filed

Trudeau, Freeland sued by Freedom Convoy protesters following Federal Court ruling

A number of Freedom Convoy protesters who had their bank accounts frozen by the Trudeau Government have sued the Prime Minister.

thecountersignal.com

 

[squeezer]

Lawsuits have been filed

Trudeau, Freeland sued by Freedom Convoy protesters following Federal Court ruling

A number of Freedom Convoy protesters who had their bank accounts frozen by the Trudeau Government have sued the Prime Minister.

thecountersignal.com

That's ok, they won't be able to keep any of it if they do win anything.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lawsuit-against-convoy-organizers-moves-forward-1.7106554

 

[Not getting younger]

Of course.
Polls are quite limited as tools.
Especially and given single poll.

The fact of weighting alone means that potential interpreter differences will be more than the margin of error in a poll like this.
The sample size here is fine. 2.5% MOE is perfectly good for a poll like this.
The odds are the numbers will have moved more than that in a week or two just because polls are snapshots in time and views change.

Weighting, question structure, recruitment...
That's why poll aggregation has become such a big thing - wash out a lot of the noise. (Also, following the same pollster on an issue over time. The numbers may be fuzzy but the trend lines will usually be informative.)

The fact is, this one poll is only mildly informative.
What were the other polls showing at the time and what were the polls showing over time as the protest progressed?
I don't think this poll was an outlier.

I only came into this because I find complaining about an MOE of 2.5% and demanding a sample size that can get you down to 2 or 1% when the results are in the 70s an utterly bizarre position to take.
It's so far past the law of diminishing returns.

Of course.
Polls are quite limited as tools.
Especially and given single poll.

Not address at you, but rather a handful or two others. Is that red line, kind of like other topics.

20 years vs 1 year of violent crime
10 years of GDP vs 1
80 polls from a year vs 1 from a week
20 Economist vs 1
20 climate scientists vs 1
??????

 

[Frankfooter]

Not address at you, but rather a handful or two others. Is that red line, kind of like other topics.

20 years vs 1 year of violent crime
10 years of GDP vs 1
80 polls from a year vs 1 from a week
20 Economist vs 1
20 climate scientists vs 1
??????

Are you confirming valcazar's point?

 

[Not getting younger]

Are you confirming valcazar's point?

Whiff……..and it right past you.

 

[Frankfooter]

Whiff……..and it right past you.

Valcazar said:

Polls are quite limited as tools.
Especially and given single poll.

Your posts are really quite incoherent, now you're saying you meant to argue that single polls are very reliable?

 

[Not getting younger]

Valcazar said:


Your posts are really quite incoherent, now you're saying you meant to argue that single polls are very reliable?

good old Frank. While there are more than are a number of reasons you keep whiffing. Here’s one of them.

You are so blinded by hatred of
Me, Skoob, Cons, Israelis anything that doesn’t fit your narrow, often uninformed view of the world. You rush in thinking you have a gotcha, when you all really have is land mine blowing up under your foot.

Case in point you’d didn’t see what I said earlier about Valcazar and Skoob having points. Nor do you see a few other things.

For a change, answer a question yourself.

Explain yourself.

 

[Frankfooter]

good old Frank. While there are more than are a number of reasons you keep whiffing. Here’s one of them.

You are so blinded by hatred of
Me, Skoob, Cons, Israelis anything that doesn’t fit your narrow, often uninformed view of the world. You rush in thinking you have a gotcha, when you all really have is land mine blowing up under your foot.

Case in point you’d didn’t see what I said earlier about Valcazar and Skoob having points. Nor do you see a few other things.

For a change, answer a question yourself.

Explain yourself.

I'm just trying to make sense of what you post as its always vague and keeps changing.
Like your comment about single polls with valcazar, now you seem to be walking it back.

 

[Valcazar]

Not meaningless. Lower margin of error would require a larger sample size.

My argument was for a larger sample size.

You can't look at the outcome after the fact to base your argument because that's not my point...this should have been done before the poll regardless.

But the outcome doesn't change if it is before or after the fact.
That you want all surveys ever to have a 1% MOE is... fine, I guess, but it is asking for meaningless permission.

The actual error due to weighting and the fact it is only a snapshot and so of limited value is large enough that the extra time and money you spent for this extra precision is lost.

And again, what is the meaningful distinction between 2.5% and 1% in this survey?
The implication of the result remains exactly the same.

Even if it was near 50, you gain no meaningful benefit from getting down to 1% sample size.

If the result is 51-49 with a 2.5% MOE or 51-49 with a 1% MOE the result is the same for purposes of the survey - "The people are evenly split on the issue.".

If your point is you want all future surveys to be at 1% MOE then fine, but understand you will probably never be able to cite a poll again because it will be extremely rare any poll you see will ever do that.
(All those polls showing the Cons are ahead probably don't have that MOE.)

If your point (which is what people have been assuming, I think) is to dismiss this particular poll because of sample size, you have nothing to stand on.

 

[Valcazar]

That's ok, they won't be able to keep any of it if they do win anything.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lawsuit-against-convoy-organizers-moves-forward-1.7106554

Good.
They may or may not be making reasonable requests for damages, but they absolutely should have the right to file a lawsuit under the circumstances.

 

[Valcazar]

I'm just trying to make sense of what you post as its always vague and keeps changing.
Like your comment about single polls with valcazar, now you seem to be walking it back.

He pretty clearly is agreeing that single polls are not particularly useful and more data is better.

NGY and I have enough disagreements, Frank. You don't need to invent ones that don't exist.

 

[Skoob]

And again, what is the meaningful distinction between 2.5% and 1% in this survey?

Margin of error used was 2.5 so sample size was about 1600.
If a margin of error would have been 1, sample size would have been closer to 10,000.

I said sample size should have been bigger based on the reasoning I provided.

That's what I said, and I wasn't wrong in my calculations.

Arguing about what the margin of error should have been is subjective as there's no right or wrong answer.