Military Spouses at the White House: The WH hosted military spouses yesterday. The US armed forces are 40% non-white. The odds that -- BY CHANCE -- a group of 52 military spouses would...

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

The WH hosted military spouses yesterday. The US armed forces are 40% non-white. The odds that -- BY CHANCE -- a group of 52 military spouses would contain no people of colour are lower than 100 trillion to 1. That would be one hell of a coincidence.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I don't know the provenance of the photo, I do see some faces that appear asian and latino and I have no verification of your 40% number ... so I have to give it a fake news likelihood.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

OH DEAR! its nowhere near 40%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/214869/share-of-active-duty-enlisted-women-and-men-in-the-us-military/

EyeSawYou

Wellhiem wrote:

The WH hosted military spouses yesterday. The US armed forces are 40% non-white. The odds that -- BY CHANCE -- a group of 52 military spouses would contain no people of colour are lower than 100 trillion to 1. That would be one hell of a coincidence.

Interesting, If I saw this photo without any text or title, it would have never occurred to me the absence of any black or Hispanic Americans. Maybe it's because the color of one's skin is irrelevant to me as it is irrelevant with most Conservatives and Republicans. This appears to be an obsession with Liberals such as yourself, you Liberals see through the lens of race on virtually everything when race is not in play. I would venture to say that those (Liberals) that notice such imagined "race discrepancies" see it that way because they are the true racists here, those that cry RACIST the loudest demonstrate their own deep rooted racism.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

LWW wrote:

OH DEAR! its nowhere near 40%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/214869/share-of-active-duty-enlisted-women-and-men-in-the-us-military/

Even at the 30% figure given in your link, the chances would still be 0.7^52. That's about a 0.000000008% chance. Or eight thousand million to one.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Wellhiem wrote:

Even at the 30% figure given in your link, the chances would still be 0.7^52. That's about a 0.000000008% chance. Or eight thousand million to one.

The link takes Male blacks down to 17% not 30%. How many are married? I draw no conclusions from the picture as none can made without more information.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

EyeSawYou wrote:

Interesting, If I saw this photo without any text ... (show quote)

Did I use the word racist? I merely pointed out the probability of such an event happening by chance. It is also possible that the reason it wouldn't have occurred to you is that as long as all you see is white people, all is well in your world. I don't know the ratio between men and women serving, but it may also be a bit of a stretch that there are no male spouses there. Looks a bit like a photo op is all I'm saying.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

letmedance wrote:

The link takes Male blacks down to 17% not 30%. How many are married? I draw no conclusions from the picture as none can made without more information.

69.5% white leaves 30.5% non-white. No-one mentioned blacks. But, even given the figure of 83% non-black, the chances of drawing 52 non-black people at random would be a 0.000006% chance. Or a 600 million to one chance.

EyeSawYou

Wellhiem wrote:

Did I use the word racist? I merely pointed out the probability of such an event happening by chance. It is also possible that the reason it wouldn't have occurred to you is that as long as all you see is white people, all is well in your world. I don't know the ratio between men and women serving, but it may also be a bit of a stretch that there are no male spouses there. Looks a bit like a photo op is all I'm saying.

Wrong again, someone posted a photo long ago of a group that had all black Americans in the photo and asked if anyone noticed anything wrong, I could not for the life of me figure out what was out of place. Why? Because I am not a race baiting racist as you Liberals are.....I don't judge by the color of anyone's skin tone, you Liberals see race in EVERYTHING because you are a deep rooted racist. The ONLY people who bring up racism on a constant basis are Liberals, that says a lot about the intent of Liberals.

EyeSawYou

Wellhiem wrote:

Did I use the word racist? I merely pointed out the probability of such an event happening by chance. It is also possible that the reason it wouldn't have occurred to you is that as long as all you see is white people, all is well in your world. I don't know the ratio between men and women serving, but it may also be a bit of a stretch that there are no male spouses there. Looks a bit like a photo op is all I'm saying.

You don't have to use the word racist when your entire post implies it.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

EyeSawYou wrote:

Wrong again, someone posted a photo long ago of a ... (show quote)

For someone trying so desperately to come across as being reasonable and unprejudiced, you make some very sweeping statements about ALL liberals. Having studied statistics and probability to quite a high level, I tend to notice non-random sampling. Nothing to do with race.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Wellhiem wrote:

69.5% white leaves 30.5% non-white. No-one mentioned blacks. But, even given the figure of 83% non-black, the chances of drawing 52 non-black people at random would be a 0.000006% chance. Or a 600 million to one chance.

In my world people of color are black, sorry. At the resolution of the photo the only assumption I can make is that there are no Black
wives in the photo, it is impossible to ascertain that individuals of Asian, Latino, or other descent are in the photo. I think I see an Asian in the upper Right.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

letmedance wrote:

In my world people of color are black, sorry. At the resolution of the photo the only assumption I can make is that there are no Black
wives in the photo, it is impossible to ascertain that individuals of Asian, Latino, or other descent are in the photo. I think I see an Asian in the upper Right.

Point taken. I may have misused the term "people of colour". But that still leaves the 600 million to one chance of no blacks appearing in a random sample.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

letmedance wrote:

The link takes Male blacks down to 17% not 30%. How many are married? I draw no conclusions from the picture as none can made without more information.

We still don’t even know the provenance of theft photo either.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

EyeSawYou wrote:

Wrong again, someone posted a photo long ago of a ... (show quote)

This is FU*KING hilarious!!!
You are SOOO gender/race nuetral being the racist that you are that your son would come home with a black wife and you wouldn’t even notice it till someone said something, then YOU would say, “what on earth are you talking about”???
Then 3 days later you would blurt out, “OMFG, jr, did you know your wife is black???
Then your racist jr. would blurt out, “OMG, is THAT what a black person is???”
Then the wife would say, “what in God’s world are you two talking about?!?!”

SS