Are we at war with Venezuela yet?

[jerryskids 7,237]

19 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Looks like a strong increase in support of handling Venezuela since Maduro was captured, from both Dems and Reps.   

Recapping the history here:  I point out a strong increase.

19 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

Strong?  No.  Still underwater on both.

Gutter shows he doesn't know what "increase" means.

18 hours ago, jerryskids said:

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

I explain how the math works.

18 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

It's 9 points, up to 13%.

If it went from 1% to 4% would be even stronger?

You're grasping at straws.  It's not popular.  You're better off going with "pollz schmollz lol"

Gutter explains that he doesn't understand how the math works, or discredits the polls, maybe both, while suggesting I should discredit the polls.

15 hours ago, jerryskids said:

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

I explain this to Gutter.

15 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

Keep moving the goalposts while pretending that people approve of what Trump is doing.

Gutter accuses me of moving the goalposts but...

15 hours ago, jerryskids said:

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

... 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.

[Ron_Artest 2,628]

Just now, jerryskids said:

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.

And I questioned your qualification of "strong".  You even quoted it, and then claimed that I don't know what "increase" means.  No, I questioned "strong".  So you proved your dishonest.

Look Jerry I'm a reasonable guy.  I'll meet you in the middle.  I will admit that there was a strong increase in the polling in support of Trump's actions in Venzeula.

Now let's see what kind of a man you are.  Are you willing to admit that more people disapprove of his actions than approve?

[jerryskids 7,237]

24 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So as I mentioned below, it would make sense that more Dems would approve of capturing a corrupt leader alive, than randomly blowing up boats, correct?  And considering that number is still very low, that certainly isn’t indicative of an increase in Democrat support for his actions overall.

 

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?

[jerryskids 7,237]

4 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

And I questioned your qualification of "strong".  You even quoted it, and then claimed that I don't know what "increase" means.  No, I questioned "strong".  So you proved your dishonest.

Look Jerry I'm a reasonable guy.  I'll meet you in the middle.  I will admit that there was a strong increase in the polling in support of Trump's actions in Venzeula.

Now let's see what kind of a man you are.  Are you willing to admit that more people disapprove of his actions than approve?

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."   

[TimHauck 3,507]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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?

Correct, yes it’s a “strong increase,” but I’m saying it makes sense that more Dems would approve of capturing Maduro than randomly blowing up boats.   And 13% approval certainly isn’t good.

[Ron_Artest 2,628]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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."   

We know what I mean, because I posted the poll.  To refresh your memory...

% saying they approve | disapprove of how Trump is handling Venezuela, in polls conducted...
Dec 20-22
Democrats 4% | 83%
Republicans 67% | 14%
Jan 4
Democrats 13% | 77%
Republicans 76% | 13%

Overall 39% Approve, 46% Disapprove.

Regarding a 225% increase, context matters.  Data is just data, it's how you use and interpret it that matters.

For example if I told you that in a city of 1 million people, there was 1 murder last year but there were 4 murders this year, would that be a strong increase?  300% right?  BUT, you moved from a murder rate of .0001 to .0004, which is still extremely low.  So while some people who have an agenda might say the murder rate has tripled and call for lockdowns, the smart people can deduce that it's still safe.

Anyway just a lesson for you on math and percentages.

[jerryskids 7,237]

7 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

We know what I mean, because I posted the poll.  To refresh your memory...

% saying they approve | disapprove of how Trump is handling Venezuela, in polls conducted...
Dec 20-22
Democrats 4% | 83%
Republicans 67% | 14%
Jan 4
Democrats 13% | 77%
Republicans 76% | 13%

Overall 39% Approve, 46% Disapprove.

Regarding a 225% increase, context matters.  Data is just data, it's how you use and interpret it that matters.

For example if I told you that in a city of 1 million people, there was 1 murder last year but there were 4 murders this year, would that be a strong increase?  300% right?  BUT, you moved from a murder rate of .0001 to .0004, which is still extremely low.  So while some people who have an agenda might say the murder rate has tripled and call for lockdowns, the smart people can deduce that it's still safe.

Anyway just a lesson for you on math and percentages.

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.   

[Ron_Artest 2,628]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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.   

I answered all your questions.  Looks like I need to dumb it down.

 

33 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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.

 

16 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

% saying they approve | disapprove of how Trump is handling Venezuela, in polls conducted...

If you want to dig into the poll, the pdf is linked above.  I personally don't care to spend time digging into it.

[Gepetto 1,494]

Who cares what polls say? It doesn't matter. The Maduro arrest is complete.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,516]

39 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

I answered all your questions.  Looks like I need to dumb it down.

 

 

If you want to dig into the poll, the pdf is linked above.  I personally don't care to spend time digging into it.

Taco

[jerryskids 7,237]

51 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

I answered all your questions.  Looks like I need to dumb it down.

 

 

If you want to dig into the poll, the pdf is linked above.  I personally don't care to spend time digging into it.

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?"

Quote

Short answer: no, this change is not statistically significant in any meaningful way, despite the very large sample sizes.

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:

Quote

Yes — this change is overwhelmingly statistically significant.

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.   

[SaintsInDome2006 843]

On 1/3/2026 at 8:05 PM, Gepetto said:

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/roosevelt-corollary

Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905)

In his annual messages to Congress in 1904 and 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the Monroe Doctrine. The corollary stated that not only were the nations of the Western Hemisphere not open to colonization by European powers, but that the United States had the responsibility to preserve order and protect life and property in those countries.

 

I happen to like this stuff. And I just came across this piece from May 2025 taking a similar tack.

 IMO there’s something really weird in Trump’s ideological brew that has nothing to do with his education at Fordham & Penn. There is *no way someone came out of those places in that era with a positive view of pre-Depression (Cleveland/ McKinley) era tariffs. It’s like he crawled out of Mrs. Havisham’s library.

I even approve of the Monroe Doctrine argument, but the answer there is Cuba, not Venezuela. And then after that if we’re talking drug trafficking & communism as a National Security threat we should go to Nicaragua, again not Venezuela. And the main national security distinction with Panama was the Panama Canal, & Noirega’s threats about that, & that was backed by Congress as well.

[Ron_Artest 2,628]

20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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.   

You're conflating the concept of statistical significance with the interpretation of the poll.  I see what happened.  I never claimed it was random or error, I was simply saying that a 13% approval rate is very very low, hence my example of 1 vs 4 murders.  Now 1 to 4 is not statistically significant but 4 to 13 is, I was choosing simple numbers to get to 300% since you were caught up on 225%.  The 225% in and of itself is not significant unless you have enough of a sample size, as you stated.  So we're in agreement on statistical significance.  I'm glad that you've backpeddled on your 225% being strong claim.

Either way, I already conceded that it is "strong" so not sure why you're still ranting.

oh and also, I used to work for that big pharma company that made the drug that saved your life, I even worked on that exact drug.  You're welcome.

[jerryskids 7,237]

2 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

You're conflating the concept of statistical significance with the interpretation of the poll.  I see what happened.  I never claimed it was random or error, I was simply saying that a 13% approval rate is very very low, hence my example of 1 vs 4 murders.  Now 1 to 4 is not statistically significant but 4 to 13 is, I was choosing simple numbers to get to 300% since you were caught up on 225%.  The 225% in and of itself is not significant unless you have enough of a sample size, as you stated.  So we're in agreement on statistical significance.  I'm glad that you've backpeddled on your 225% being strong claim.

Either way, I already conceded that it is "strong" so not sure why you're still ranting.

oh and also, I used to work for that big pharma company that made the drug that saved your life, I even worked on that exact drug.  You're welcome.

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.   

[Ron_Artest 2,628]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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.   

I understand the math.  You don't understand my point no matter how many times I explain it because you are fixated on your point and being "right".

[TimHauck 3,507]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

I understand the math.  You don't understand my point no matter how many times I explain it because you are fixated on your point and being "right".

I mean if Jerry wanted to quibble over your statement, he should have debated you saying “most Americans don’t like this,” since technically it was not the majority, with 46% disapproving vs 39% approving.   Instead he had to change the conversation completely 

[seafoam1 3,564]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

I mean if Jerry wanted to quibble over your statement, he should have debated you saying “most Americans don’t like this,” since technically it was not the majority, with 46% disapproving vs 39% approving.   Instead he had to change the conversation completely 

Timhack and gutternuts. 

[Maximum Overkill 2,686]

I just checked, still not at War 

[SaintsInDome2006 843]

On 12/17/2025 at 4:29 PM, Gepetto said:

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE

July 27, 2025

One year since dictator Nicolás Maduro defied the will of the Venezuelan people by baselessly declaring himself the winner, the United States remains firm in its unwavering support to Venezuela’s restoration of democratic order and justice.  Maduro is not the President of Venezuela and his regime is not the legitimate government.

Maduro is the leader of the designated narco-terrorist organization Cartel de Los Soles, and he is responsible for trafficking drugs into the United States and Europe.  Maduro, currently indicted by our nation, has corrupted Venezuela’s institutions to assist the cartel’s criminal narco-trafficking scheme into the United States. 

 

Justice Dept. Drops Claim That Venezuela’s ‘Cartel de los Soles’ Is an Actual Group ~~< Last year, before capturing President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration designated a Venezuelan slang term for drug corruption in the military as a terrorist organization

>>>

The Justice Department has backed off a dubious claim about President Nicolás Maduro that the Trump administration promoted last year in laying the groundwork to remove him from power in Venezuela: accusing him of leading a drug cartel called Cartel de los Soles.

That claim traces back to a 2020 grand jury indictment of Mr. Maduro drafted by the Justice Department. In July 2025, copying language from it, the Treasury Department designated Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization. In November, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and President Trump’s national security adviser, ordered the State Department to do the same.

But experts in Latin American crime and narcotics issues have said it is actually a slang term, invented by the Venezuelan media in the 1990s, for officials who are corrupted by drug money. And on Saturday, after the administration captured Mr. Maduro, the Justice Department released a rewritten indictment that appeared to tacitly concede the point.<<<

[dogcows 1,375]

48 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Justice Dept. Drops Claim That Venezuela’s ‘Cartel de los Soles’ Is an Actual Group ~~< Last year, before capturing President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration designated a Venezuelan slang term for drug corruption in the military as a terrorist organization

>>>

The Justice Department has backed off a dubious claim about President Nicolás Maduro that the Trump administration promoted last year in laying the groundwork to remove him from power in Venezuela: accusing him of leading a drug cartel called Cartel de los Soles.

That claim traces back to a 2020 grand jury indictment of Mr. Maduro drafted by the Justice Department. In July 2025, copying language from it, the Treasury Department designated Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization. In November, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and President Trump’s national security adviser, ordered the State Department to do the same.

But experts in Latin American crime and narcotics issues have said it is actually a slang term, invented by the Venezuelan media in the 1990s, for officials who are corrupted by drug money. And on Saturday, after the administration captured Mr. Maduro, the Justice Department released a rewritten indictment that appeared to tacitly concede the point.<<<

Good thing they got TWO indictments then. 

This administration is so incompetent that he could end up being acquitted.

Good news is that I read long-time CAREER prosecutors will be handling the case, not clowns like Lindsey Halligan. So hopefully they can secure a conviction. 

[TimHauck 3,507]

11 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said:

I just checked, still not at War 

 

[seafoam1 3,564]

Nope. Not a war. It was a brilliantly executed police action. A+.

Trump kicks ass..