[jml]

I wish I had joined this forum before the crack scandal. There's so much interesting stuff posted at that time that I'm tempted to go back and read it all, if only I had the time for it.

I actually went and read over the whole thread, skipping a few dozen pages here or there. It's great to read everything around the time of the Garrison Ball knowing the truth -- a surprising number of posters gave him the benefit of the doubt. It was kind of thrilling to know comeuppance was coming. It's also fun to watch all the weirdness in early May (Rob Ford sticking magnets on cars?) then the revelation that "OF COURSE. He's on CRACK." Duhhhh.

 

[VTB]

Guys I'm not buying this.

It's like he just dropped in from Mars and has to start from scratch with all things Rob Ford. If he wants to learn more and he knows enough to find his way to this forum, then let him Google away. There should be enough to keep him busy for years.

Can we get back to the matter at hand please. We don't need pages and pages of hand-holding.

 

[evvabeing]

Dr. Drew: Rob Ford will relapse

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2...-erin-sot-drew-rob-ford-drunken-rant.cnn.html

 

[jml]

"A master class on alcoholic thinking". Well-put. It's scary how many people in Toronto believed Rob Ford could Arnold Schwarzeneggerianly train his way out of substance abuse problems with a workout regimen. Anybody with even minor experience with addiction knew that was pure alcoholic thinking. Is public awareness of the nature of addiction really this low?

 

[Kat_YYZ]

But it also means that we are onto something here, that the trolls come a-calling.
We should feel proud that trolls leave their dungeon domains and attempt an attack on UT!

Guys I'm not buying this.

It's like he just dropped in from Mars and has to start from scratch with all things Rob Ford. If he wants to learn more and he knows enough to find his way to this forum, then let him Google away. There should be enough to keep him busy for years.

Can we get back to the matter at hand please. We don't need pages and pages of hand-holding.

Bingo. People here get to talking about the warrants, an impending arrest (for something bigger than crack-smoking), connections to criminal enterprises and *presto* thread derailed. Not the first time this week, either.

 

[Kat_YYZ]

I actually went and read over the whole thread, skipping a few dozen pages here or there. It's great to read everything around the time of the Garrison Ball knowing the truth -- a surprising number of posters gave him the benefit of the doubt. It was kind of thrilling to know comeuppance was coming. It's also fun to watch all the weirdness in early May (Rob Ford sticking magnets on cars?) then the revelation that "OF COURSE. He's on CRACK." Duhhhh.

I've gone back a few times, too, and read thru a few dozen pages at a time (before realizing 'hey it's nearly 6 am and I have to get up for work in 2 hours -- argh! FML!'). Sometimes you see a post about a casual observation or something overheard, and at the time it seemed random or meaningless, but now with hindsight, it's quite revealing. Same thing with some online news articles from 1 or 2 years ago, sometimes you see a comment posted (in the long-since-closed comments section) and it just seemed cryptic and weird at the time, but now you realize that the commenter was hinting at something.

 

[JWBF]

Kir:

You are quite adorable in your ignorance. First, polls are really useless, most are at best about a thousand people who responded, there are considerably more people in Toronto, so a sampling that small is just a guess. Second, your maths are typical to conservatives, all perspective and no actual substance. Third, if you use Wikipedia as you main base for information then you are missing a lot of the world. Lastly, trolls are those whom are not interested in debate, but only to spout "good facts", and point fingers when the "good facts" aren't passing as actual facts.

Cheers

 

[jml]

I've gone back a few times, too, and read thru a few dozen pages at a time (before realizing 'hey it's nearly 6 am and I have to get up for work in 2 hours -- argh! FML!'). Sometimes you see a post about a casual observation or something overheard, and at the time it seemed random or meaningless, but now with hindsight, it's quite revealing. Same thing with some online news articles from 1 or 2 years ago, sometimes you see a comment posted (in the long-since-closed comments section) and it just seemed cryptic and weird at the time, but now you realize that the commenter was hinting at something.

Yeah, this from page 101 in early 2011 is kind of eerie:

"I still can't get over this nagging conviction that some big municipal tragedy without precedent (at least, in a city of this size) is in the offing, something which may involve a "quarantining" of the Mayor, roughly speaking. At one time, I thought the tragedy'd be externally triggered (like, say, protests leading to Kent State-type killings, or an attempt on his life); now I'm leaning more t/w its being self-inflicted."

 

[euler]

First, polls are really useless, most are at best about a thousand people who responded, there are considerably more people in Toronto, so a sampling that small is just a guess.

Assuming a completely random sampling method, a sample of about 1000 people is all that is necessary to determine statistics within a margin of error of +/- 3% 19 times out of 20 for a population the size of Toronto.

Look up "margin of error", "confidence interval", Google "confidence interval calculator" etc. Pollsters are not amateurs. They even try to account for sampling error (which varying levels of success...). But, the sample size is not the issue here.

That's not really an endorsement for Ford considering that if you look at the actual polls, his numbers are quite dismal - he is the incumbent and a sizeable majority would not consider voting for him. There's also the issue that there really aren't that many alternatives to Ford being pitched right now, personally I'm not really a huge fan of anyone in the mayor's race at the moment.

But the math works out.

 

[milkywaymusings]

Assuming a completely random sampling method, a sample of about 1000 people is all that is necessary to determine statistics within a margin of error of +/- 3% 19 times out of 20 for a population the size of Toronto.

Look up "margin of error", "confidence interval", Google "confidence interval calculator" etc. Pollsters are not amateurs. They even try to account for sampling error (which varying levels of success...). But, the sample size is not the issue here.

That's not really an endorsement for Ford considering that if you look at the actual polls, his numbers are quite dismal - he is the incumbent and a sizeable majority would not consider voting for him. There's also the issue that there really aren't that many alternatives to Ford being pitched right now, personally I'm not really a huge fan of anyone in the mayor's race at the moment.

But the math works out.

Edit: euler, this is not specifically directed at you, but at all those who think these polls matter.

First, it doesn't take much to design a poll with a predetermined outcome.

Second, you are correct that pollsters are not amateurs. They are professionals whose profit-margins are razor thin, but also whose advertising relies heavily on political polls. This tension creates a double-bind situation wherein pollsters must conduct these polls at no charge, but they also must do so at little-to-no cost. Invariably, the end-result is compromised by the downward cost pressure.

Third, sample sizes, adequate statistically or otherwise, mean nothing. Polls flatten out complexity, nuance, and any measure of contingency. Then, in the media, these already decontextualized views become even further removed from any subtlety or thoughtfulness as poll results are reduced to an 'approval rating' that fits tidily not only on a news ticker, but also within any given media narrative. Ultimately, the end-product of these polls is a meaningless number - one that hardly resembles the opinions of individuals in the original sample.

Fourth, and finally, these polls make no sense outside of the two months or so prior to election day. This isn't federal or provincial politics, wherein you know more or less in advance what your voting options might be. What if Mark Carney wakes up on Friday, ditches the Bank of England, and decides he wants to run for Mayor of Toronto?

In short, these polls are fucking useless.

 

[GeekGirl]

There are surely ways to achieve this without the damaging "optics". Bring your child to city hall, teach him or her about city hall processes, answer any questions they may have about Rob Ford, encourage them to write emails and talk with members of council, have them sit in on council meetings. None of these things have the same appearance problems as a sit in with their parents. If the kid was old enough, then even encourage them to take part in protests and sit ins by themselves.


Normally, I'm less concerned about this sort of thing, but Ford and his team have been taking advantage of every "optics" mistakes the left have made and turned them against us. (The death threat the other day, for example)


Rob Ford isn't nearly of an embarasment to our city than his support numbers are.

I don't give a one small care as to how the 'optics' appear to right wing mouth breathers. Not even a little bit and frankly, your suggestion that everyone should somehow consider how these throwbacks think is a lot insulting. Sorry, we are here to win, and we will never win if everything we do has to pass some bullshit right wing optics test. These clowns are not the norm I and everyone else must judge ourselves by. These are the people I wish to avoid - in my life, in politics and certainly in the way I raise my child.

 

[Admiral Beez]

This is Robtard Ford we're dealing with.

What is this "Robtard" term you're using? Is this an attempted portmanteau of Rob and r#tard?

People with special needs have done nothing to deserve your derision or mockery.

http://www.r-word.org/

 

[sno man]

Well, the article that I read and referred to in my post had a different quote. So I guess the question is which quote is correct.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...oved-from-torontos-city-hall/article16750523/

“This is about the Olympics. This is about being patriotic to your country. This is not about someone’s sexual preference. No I do not agree with putting up the rainbow flag. We should put our Canadian flag up. I put my Canadian flag up in the window,†Mr. Ford said.

Someone else may have brought this up in the meantime, but I need to bring this up as I catch up...
The whole flag thing, beyond the clear dog whistle to the homophobic portion of his base, flows from either his misunderstanding of the whole point of that flag pole or his firm belief that many others also misunderstand. To put the Canadian flag on that pole would be wrong, period. The Canadian flag does not fly on a courtesy or special event pole in this country. The Canadian flag does not get taped to window by people that respect the flag either, but that is a point for another time. If the Mayor was petitioning to put the Olympic (rings) flag on that pole, it would be a more appropriate argument, although completely missing the 'multinational condemnation of the Russian law removing the basic human rights of a portion of it's people' point reflecting solidarity of support for equal rights for all... Canada, while not perfect, strives toward basic human rights for all, it's even in our Charter of Human Rights, which has since been modeled in other counties and reflected in the Toronto official motto: "Diversity: Our Strength"

 

[euler]

Ultimately, the end-product of these polls is a meaningless number - one that hardly resembles the opinions of individuals in the original sample.

The end result is actually a document that breaks down the methods used, the questions asked, and exactly the responses for each. It's just that different numbers are reported by different people to fit with their own narrative. It's very easy to lie with statistics, so if Forum wants to advertise themselves by posting an explosive statistic all they have to do is publicize that one shocking number like the 'approval rating' instead, while quietly putting the entire details of the poll results somewhere few people will find them.

I think polls have a use if you know how to read them and understand when someone's twisting them for nefarious purposes. Regardless, I was just saying that the sample size was correct.

 

[newearthling]

Could Toronto become another Detroit? The reason Detroit started to decline was because of institutionalized corruption, right?
People started moving because they weren't getting good value for their taxes. Then there was a wide enough tax base, rising crime, and presto bankruptcy.
I know that is very simplified. It could be wrong.
But are we on that path?
Toronto isnt the city that "works" anymore.
We are passing billion dolar subway boondoggle deals when other plans are passed over.
Council seems just as paralyzed as the traffic enveloping the city.
I guess we will see if things improve once someone else is mayor.
But if we dont have people with bold vision and the courage to get it done, Toronto will see an exodus and a decline.