CA Senator Corruption...don't you just love politicians! (Exeter: moving to, bill)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

What am I supposed to get from that link? The link is simply referencing the report from the Center for Public Integrity. It even has their freaking logo in the article.



"A Project Of...."

You claimed the DOJ supports your position, and that you're not using an interpretation of data from a third party org like the "Center for Public Integrity", but you haven't posted ONE link or source that says the DOJ themselves are using those stats to say California is LESS corrupt, all of your support is based on one report from well known ******* left wing, soros supported, Center for Public Integrity.

Seriously, where does the DOJ, NOT CPI, say that California is LESS corrupt than other states? Why is it taking you so long to find this DOJ source that makes this claim? Do you not have a DOJ source that makes such a claim? Why not admit that it doesn't exist and drop the charade?



All of those questions are irrelevant to my point, which is, you don't have a reliable unbiased, TRULY non-partisan, report that claims California is less corrupt than other states. You have ONE single report from a ******* org that licks and eats money from George Soros's hands. That's it. If that's all you got, you really have nothing, just a claim, and some personal bias, nothing more.

I am sorry for whatever you are struggling with that obstructs your ability to read, think, and process information. I just led you to the exact verification of the data. It is printed in the link. All of my other questions relate directly to your protests. You refuse to acknowledge any of this. Your problem lies in a disorder of some kind and there is no further point to this discussion. Good luck, best wishes on resolving your issues.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I am sorry for whatever you are struggling with that obstructs your ability to read, think, and process information. I just led you to the exact verification of the data. It is printed in the link. All of my other questions relate directly to your protests. You refuse to acknowledge any of this. Your problem lies in a disorder of some kind and there is no further point to this discussion. Good luck, best wishes on resolving your issues.

Take care Tuley. We'll miss you buddy.

[Tulemutt]

For those readers whose mental faculties are functional, and who might be interested in the sources for the statistics referenced, here's a bit of summary:

The report on public corruption made by the CPI (Center for Public Integrity) is not the source of the statistics.
The source for the statistics is the U.S. Department of Justice and the Census Bureau. As I have said. The graphic chart showing those stats was also not generated by the CPI. It was created by the New York Times, using DoJ and Census stats. All this is clearly stated at the foot of the charts (for those who know how to read referencing). Here is the quote from the original NY Times articles verifying this:

Number of Guilty Officials (Graphic)

In a Department of Justice tally covering the last decade, Florida wins by its sheer number of guilty. The report, released last week, itemizes convictions in federal public corruption cases at local, state and federal levels in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and three United States territories.

Illinois ranks only seventh, with 502 convictions. At the squeaky-clean end of the scale, Nebraska barely managed an average of about one guilty official per year.

But the bigger the state, generally, the more officials it has, criminal or otherwise. So places like Florida, New York and Texas pile up big numbers. Let's adjust the data for population.

The Guilty, per Capita (Graphic)

A better measure, perhaps, showing how many convicted officials are produced for every one million constituents. Seems fair - unless you're North Dakota.

The original numbers can be found in various statistical reports from the DoJ itself, as well as other trackers. For the neurotically curious, I link a couple more below from various years, but you will have to surf through various data bases and links to find specifics. Fun to see how California's, and everywhere else's, rates vary over the past decade or so. Sometimes middle of the pack. Sometimes low. But never worse than about 25 out of fifty. Averaging over the years brings California squarely in the low corruption category:

USDOJ: CRM: Public Integrity Section (PIN)

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - All Data Collections

The most corrupt states

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/corruptreport.pdf

United States_Statistical Resources

[ExeterMedia]

And still no source stating the DOJ came to any conclusion that California was a less corrupt state than others as Tulemutt tried to erroneously claim.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

All of those questions are irrelevant to my point, which is, you don't have a reliable unbiased, TRULY non-partisan, report that claims California is less corrupt than other states. You have ONE single report from a ******* org that licks and eats money from George Soros's hands. That's it. If that's all you got, you really have nothing, just a claim, and some personal bias, nothing more.

One cannot effectively discuss a point with someone who demands non-partisan, presumably objective sources of data form others, while at the same time splattering words like "*******" all over their own posts.
Sounds suspiciously like the ol' "Fair and Balanced" approach our favorite ironicomedy network belches unto the airwaves.

And yes, this one seems to be taking this into an increasingly personal direction, for whatever reason (they're just stats, fer crisesake, they won't jump out and bite you). But also, continue to blissfully ignore, at your leisure. Blinders are soothing.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

One cannot effectively discuss a point with someone who demands non-partisan, presumably objective sources of data form others, while at the same time splattering words like "*******" all over their own posts.
Sounds suspiciously like the ol' "Fair and Balanced" approach our favorite ironicomedy network belches unto the airwaves.

And yes, this one seems to be taking this into an increasingly personal direction, for whatever reason (they're just stats, fer crisesake, they won't jump out and bite you). But also, continue to blissfully ignore, at your leisure. Blinders are soothing.

Yes. It's been a remarkable protest. Blinders indeed. The world's most respected news media displayed the DoJ statistics most simplistically and unmistakably - and yet. All clearly identified and referenced - and yet. Every challenge answered with unarguable logic - and yet.

And yet: there are those for whom ideology contests that 1+1 could possibly =2.

[ExeterMedia]

At least Tuley is now (finally) admitting that he used a third party interpretation of statistics to back his point instead of claiming the DOJ backs his point. He learns slow, but he does eventually get it.

[TrueTimbers]

Yep...
Appears Exetermedia suffers from the old saying:

Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure



This is not rocket science... There are simply other states that are more corrupt than California....

Personally this partisan viewpoint of the right wing whiners.. Is "anti patriotic" and does contribute anything to this deeply disturbing issue of corruption, no matter which party it comes from.

Divided we fall... United we stand....

[Tulemutt]

Any review of every one of my posts in this thread will show exactly what I said: that the DoJ stats support / say that California is among the least corrupt states based on convictions per capita. Absolutely clear. Nothing more nothing less. Reader cognition problems tied to personal disorders do not alter the reality of what I have presented, nor the truth of the matter.

[ExeterMedia]

Stats supporting an interpretation or theory mean nothing. The validity of a statistical analysis is only as good as its individual components. All you have right now is a casual link between one single stat, and your agenda. Yet you're ignoring the other stats such as California having 20x the amount of convicted politicians of Rhode Island, yet receiving a "less corrupt" rating, despite having a smaller state assembly.

So like I said, it's nice that you have a theory, but if you actually want to convince anyone of what you're saying is true, you have to try harder than pasting the same Center for Public Integrity report over and over again, hardly an unbiased source.

I'm just glad that I was finally able to teach you the difference between stats and stat interpretation. You don't understand how happy this makes me feel. Like a mother to her younger son, except you're much, much older, but nothing wrong with late bloomers.