jerryskids

I can't believe Walz could have been VP, one step from running the country. We dodged a bullet by avoiding him and Harris.

Best case for the Somalis, and worst case for America, is that in the end, the fraud is so pervasive in so many states by so many groups of people, that they get lost in the enormity of it all.

Who did you vote for, woman?

It's all a lie! That's it! That's the story!

If she does, then good I guess? He probably wants lots of things. No more oil, weapons, or training for our enemies. Work with us to prevent drug shipments into the US. Let us fix the infrastructure so they can get back to 1970s level production, and yes, get some of that oil at a favorable price, basically recouping the cost of such an investment. I strongly doubt that we will go in and claim that we own the oil there. But we can add that to things to monitor.

Speculation I heard today is that our people are concerned that since Machado doesn't control the military, to hand the country over to her now would be to just give it back to the bad guys. This is what Trump meant by "doesn't have the respect..." Instead the short term plan is to see if Rodriguez got the FAFO memo and is willing to cooperate until a more permanent long-term regime is in place.

Again, you misunderstand the math. It is not 1 to 4 vs. 4 to 13, it is 1 to 4 vs. 40000 to 130000. or 10000 to 40000 (which is also statistically significant) vs. 40000 to 130000. You don't get the math, that's cool, let's move on. Thank you for your role in that drug.

Sorry, in all of this straw man, I missed your answer: Mamdani says he's concerned about Venezuelans in NYC. Do you think those people are concerned about the regime change? Or care about how it was done? These are the people who by and large escaped Maduro, or Chavez before him. He really has the pulse of the people there!

you'd be a... monkey death car?

Mamdani says he's concerned about Venezuelans in NYC. Do you think those people are concerned about the regime change? Or care about how it was done? These are the people who by and large escaped Maduro, or Chavez before him. He really has the pulse of the people there! Meanwhile Mamdani is on record as saying he will exhaust all legal options to arrest Netanyahu in the city with the largest Jewish population in the world (2nd to Tel Aviv in metro area). Somehow he's not concerned about them.

Cited for driving 101 in a 60. https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nfl/2025/06/18/shedeur-sanders-speeding-cleveland-browns-qb-driving-101-mph-ticket/84266290007/

I gave you two options: "entirety of behavior" or "capture of Maduro". You are too much of a troll to answer that. I suppose I'm supposed to glean that you mean the former (entirety of behavior)? If so, congrats on your big win over no one, since I argued only for the strong increase in approval, which is borne out by the polls. Nevertheless, let me educate you on why your example sucks and you don't understand polls. Let's focus on a concept called "statistical significance." Your example of a change from 1 our of 1M to 4 out of 1M is not statistically significant. Mathematically, you can plug this into ChatGPT to get the explanation: "Let's say that a poll of 1M people gets 1 No vote and 999999 Yes votes. A subsequent poll of 1M people gets 4 No votes and 999996 Yes votes. Is this change statistically significant?" Now let's change the prompt to: "Let's say that a poll of 1M people gets 40000 No votes and 960000 Yes votes. A subsequent poll of 1M people gets 130000 No votes and 870000 Yes votes. Is this change statistically significan" The result: Put into words, your 1 vs 4 example is, for all intents and purposes, essentially 0 vs. 0, from a confidence interval perspective. Now, you might say that I made up the 1M sample size, which is true. You still used it to show your lack of math acumen, but regardless, addressing this concern: the number of actual samples introduces the concept of confidence interval (CI), which is needed to determine whether or not the changes are statistically significant. I looked at the PDF links and, as near as I can tell, only December PDFs are provided, and I don't see any mention of CIs. But presuming that the CIs are within a few percent, a change from 4% to 13% would be statistically significant. If for some reason the CIs are much larger such that the change isn't statistically significant, that brings up the question of the accuracy of the poll. This is why I said you may be unwittingly supporting "pollz shmollz lol". Basically, either the improvement is statistically significant, or the poll is so bad that it can't differentiate results that are 9% points apart. I sincerely hope that when you worked with pharma companies, you were just a code monkey putting in formulas that the smart people developed, and that you weren't instead developing them let alone interpreting them.

I'm sure the Pats are happy to contribute to his defense fund.

That's a lot of words that don't answer my question. Answer it, and I'll do you the courtesy of showing you how you don't understand how polls work.

If by "his actions" you mean the entirety of his behavior with Venezuela, including bombing the boats, then of course that is what the polls indicate. If by "his actions" you mean the capture of Maduro, then see my response to Tim. Speaking of which, I've noted that you do not consider a 225% increase "strong."

Do you feel ignored or something? Anyway, say they polled 1M Dems. In December, 40,000 of them approved of Trump's handling of Venezuela. A month later, the day after Maduro is captured, 130,000 of them approve of Trump's handling of Venezuela. Would you say that is a strong increase? As an additional note, they never asked specifically about the capture of Maduro. Perhaps this was to keep consistent with the previous polls, but since the only tangible change was the capture, we could conclude that a significantly higher number of people would answer "yes" to approving the capture, correct?

Recapping the history here: I point out a strong increase. Gutter shows he doesn't know what "increase" means. I explain how the math works. Gutter explains that he doesn't understand how the math works, or discredits the polls, maybe both, while suggesting I should discredit the polls. I explain this to Gutter. Gutter accuses me of moving the goalposts but... ... my point all along is that the latest polls show a strong increase. I'd say HTH to Gutter, but I know it won't.

Good job ignoring the clear improvement in your own polls, and as a bonus funny, accusing me of having marching orders. Also, congrats on showing you understand percentages as well as Trump.

I had a great night, thanks. Went to our neighbor's house to play euchre. The first polls were conducted prior to the Maduro capture and reflected people's opinions of the bombing of Venezuelan boats. I have been on record as opposing those. The later polls were in the immediate aftermath of the Maduro capture and showed significant improvement in both Dem and Rep approval of Trump's handling of Venezuela. Meanwhile, Gutter in his brilliance tells me I should say "pollz shmolz lol" while simultaneously ignoring the above clear trend, and discounting the veracity of his own polls. I'd say you can't make this up but... ... he closed out the night showing once again that he doesn't understand percentages. My guess is he had one to many IPAs celebrating the Giants victory that worsened their draft slot.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/tim-walz-out-minnesota-00710541 Seems he missed the memo from dogcows and Ron Artest that this was a nothingburger.

Thanks, Red HerringCows!

Lolz, you are a child. The 13% is the Dem number, they would give Trump <10% if he rescued a cat from a tree. And I would expect you to understand the math of polls, but apparently not. You were doing good pretending to be moderate for a while, but I guess that's done. Welcome back, Moderate Tim.

The polls show significant improvement in approval. I can't fix your inability to math. Ignorance is bliss.

4% or 40%, if the poll is accurate, the numbers are accurate, and that's a huge increase. And that's on the Dem side. I hate to break it to you, but you are the one arguing "pollz schmollz lol". You are saying your own polls are crap. HTH

Democrat support went from 4% to 13%. That's a 225% increase. Not strong enough for "strong"?