EPIC Flagpole:
^Moderator Clickbait
EPIC Flagpole:
^Moderator Clickbait
So four Republican Senators do not support the latest healthcare bill in its present form.
Ted Cruz needs it to be written to lower premiums more.
That'll need more subsidies or crazy high deductibles.
Rand Paul doesn't like any subsidies. He'd like a full repeal and has no clue of how to make it cheaper for more Americans.
Ron Johnson and Mike Lee also said they do not support this bill.
They can only lose two Republican votes in total.
And any change to appease any of the holdouts may cause others to drop out.
The Republicans do not want to pass this and be blamed for the issues it causes.
They liked complaining about Obamacare but do not have a better idea.
Klik Bate wrote:
^Queerbait
EPIC Flagpole wrote:
Klik Bate wrote:^Queerbait
YAWN!!!!
Paul Ryan does not care what you think. Your Dems lied left and left:) I'll list some of them later on tonight, going running...I actually run unlike Flagpole and others.
Flagpole wrote:
eric a blair wrote:this is, of course, what sunk HRC - she was found blameless for the Benghazi losses, but during the investigation they found that she used her own email server.
I'm completely sure that Mueller is looking for evidence of financial crimes in the trump orgs. And since the trump org has admitted to many financial crimes, I'm sure they'll find more. The question is if congress will impeach him for cheating on taxes or money laundering.
Yep. I have days when I think that surely even the Republican congress can't allow this person to continue as President if they find financial crimes or collusion or more money laundering than they already know about, but then I see adults kiss his butt at the Secretary meeting and people who should know better (like Paul Ryan) continue to defend and support Trump, and I think that this circus will likely continue. Ryan has the least integrity of any Republican in the House. All big bad and mighty about not standing for Trump's behavior when he was still a candidate that most people thought would lose, but now that's President, everything Trump does is fine. Paul Ryan should be ashamed of himself, and I really hope he is.
The post found that Hillary lied 5.3 times per day. Good, so throw out half of them.
eric a blair wrote:
It always amazes me when trumpers deny trump lies a lot. Are they serious? Do they seriously not know that he is a degenerate liar? Do they define truth as whatever trump says? Do they just like the way he talks? Does it 'sound' more truthful than when professorial Obama spoke?
The Post found trump to lie 4.9 times per day during his first 100 days. So throw out half of them. Fine. You still have more than two lies per day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/01/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/?utm_term=.d53290e7b68aGeffen Records Inc. wrote:Ok then, list his twice a day lies, I'll wait for it.
Here's someone who actually slept in the same building that they did...unlike Flagpole who will lie like there's no tomorrow. But if Geffen said Trump was a liar, then he'd post it and it would be gospel. You lefties are pathetic liars.
Maureen Dowd quoted former Clinton supporter David Geffen as saying a variety of unkind things about the former first couple. "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling," said the media mogul.
"It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."
Yes, and there were Dems who did not support Obamascare. Your point?
kekistani wrote:
do liberal realize how obnoxious the majority of americans find them?
lolololol r u guys gonna learn or keep losing elections??
oh thats right I forgot... russia russia russia russia russia russia russia russia russia russia rusis ruassia russoa rusas irs rosihari hcir hf lolololololollloloollo
holy smokeslink! link!you anonymous troll you
Games anyone????????? wrote:
The post found that Hillary lied 5.3 times per day. Good, so throw out half of them.
eric a blair wrote:It always amazes me when trumpers deny trump lies a lot. Are they serious? Do they seriously not know that he is a degenerate liar? Do they define truth as whatever trump says? Do they just like the way he talks? Does it 'sound' more truthful than when professorial Obama spoke?
The Post found trump to lie 4.9 times per day during his first 100 days. So throw out half of them. Fine. You still have more than two lies per day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/01/president-trumps-first-100-days-the-fact-check-tally/?utm_term=.d53290e7b68a
exthrower wrote:
The FBI investigation is a year old...How long can you fools keep hopin?
Are you gonna jump off a bridge if he's exonerated? Please do...
here's some news
the whitewater investigation led to Lewinsky and impeachment in the house
the Benghazi investigation led to HRC's private email server and that probably cost her the presidency.
Trump is an admitted money launderer and tax cheat - you think a motivated bunch of investigators won't find something large in the Trump Orgs? Trump was in NYC real estate and casinos. Wretched, amoral businesses. it's clear that the counsel is looking into all trump family members and businesses.
Why the heck do you think Trump is so panicky? Guy stopped paying taxes for years, deals with mobsters, foreign agents and Russian oligarchs. His closet is probably so full of skeletons that finding one will not be a challenge for Mueller and corps.
But yeah. Fools, we are.
hah. Just a matter of time, ex.
EPIC Flagpole wrote:
FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:LOL Good one, dude.
Now perhaps you can actually try to answer the question without any diversions (Oh wait, you're a Trumpette - that is simply not possible for you. Feel free to prove me wrong on this by actually answering the question).
WRT:
"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."
Why do you think that dividing by 2.1 is appropriate? Is 2.1 relevant to the scale of the numbers here?
Would being off by 1.2% (as in 3.3% vs 2.1%) be a whole lot better if the poll vs actual numbers were 7.2% vs 6.0% (maybe something like 3x better)?
What about if the poll number was 1.21% vs the final result of 0.01%? Should we then interpret this "inaccuracy" as being 1.2/.01 = 12,000% ? Wow, those would have been SO much worse polling results, no?
Go for it, dude. Let's see if you can actually answer the question being asked. I'd put the probability that you can and will at 0%. How can I be so confident? You're a Trumpette. Prove me wrong.
I'll continue to play because this is kind of fun...
"Why do you think that dividing by 2.1 is appropriate? Is 2.1 relevant to the scale of the numbers here?"
I think I actually understand why you'd be asking this question now (see next answer). Comparing the actual election outcome (2.1) to the polling mean (3.3) normalizes the data. Just referring to the difference in nominal terms doesn't reflect the scale of the error. "They were only off by 1.2" is misleading. This is very relevant within the context of the months and months of polling data at our disposal. This is where I believe you may not be making the connection: it's not as if we took a single poll and then had the election, having no idea where the actual result would end up. In that case, you could consider 2.1 and 3.3 to be pretty accurate. This is where the confidence interval comes into play. We had months and months of polling data that narrowed the expected outcome down to a narrow range.
"Would being off by 1.2% (as in 3.3% vs 2.1%) be a whole lot better if the poll vs actual numbers were 7.2% vs 6.0% (maybe something like 3x better)?"
First, the 3.3 and 2.1 (and 7.2 and 6.0 in your example) should not be percentages. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume this was an honest mistake.
You need to consider the sample distributions of the polls. In your new example, are most of the polls showing +9, +10, +11 margins, with an outlier at -2 or 0? Or are they all between +5 and +8? This matters. Confidence intervals correct for this.
But if the sample distribution maintains the same nominal precision, with the poll mean and respective actual outcome floating around in tandem, the accuracy essentially remains the same. And this is where I assume you don't like the normalization I applied initially?
OMG, did you really just say this:
"I think I actually understand why you'd be asking this question now (see next answer). Comparing the actual election outcome (2.1) to the polling mean (3.3) normalizes the data. Just referring to the difference in nominal terms doesn't reflect the scale of the error. "They were only off by 1.2" is misleading."
?1?1?1?
Holy shit, dude, you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. None. Zero. Zip.
You haven't been just kidding all along. OMFG.
And I have to ask again, are you really, honestly too stupid to see how inane that is? I guess the answer is yes.
Here's another clue for you dude (or should I call you dudette?): The actual margin of victory has no, nada, zilch, zippo relevance in "normalizing" the data. Zip.
Seriously, are you really too stupid to understand that? If not, if you have any brain cells at all, go back to a 1.201 projected margin of victory versus an actual margin of 0.001 and contemplate how the poll was off by 120,000%.
Seriously, are you that stupid? I simply cannot believe it.
Carrier will fire 600 employees at a facility in Indianapolis and send the manufacturing jobs to Mexico. President Trump had boasted about keeping the company’s jobs on American soil. [Axios]
eric a blair wrote:
Carrier will fire 600 employees at a facility in Indianapolis and send the manufacturing jobs to Mexico. President Trump had boasted about keeping the company’s jobs on American soil. [Axios]
Fake news!
MAGA! MAGA!
MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!
another compendium of DJT lies. But yeah, some trumpers will deny trump is a compulsive liar. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=region®ion=region&WT.nav=region
Geffen Records Inc. wrote:
Ok then, list his twice a day lies, I'll wait for it.
FP is a LOT smarter than you wrote:
EPIC Flagpole wrote:I'll continue to play because this is kind of fun...
"Why do you think that dividing by 2.1 is appropriate? Is 2.1 relevant to the scale of the numbers here?"
I think I actually understand why you'd be asking this question now (see next answer). Comparing the actual election outcome (2.1) to the polling mean (3.3) normalizes the data. Just referring to the difference in nominal terms doesn't reflect the scale of the error. "They were only off by 1.2" is misleading. This is very relevant within the context of the months and months of polling data at our disposal. This is where I believe you may not be making the connection: it's not as if we took a single poll and then had the election, having no idea where the actual result would end up. In that case, you could consider 2.1 and 3.3 to be pretty accurate. This is where the confidence interval comes into play. We had months and months of polling data that narrowed the expected outcome down to a narrow range.
"Would being off by 1.2% (as in 3.3% vs 2.1%) be a whole lot better if the poll vs actual numbers were 7.2% vs 6.0% (maybe something like 3x better)?"
First, the 3.3 and 2.1 (and 7.2 and 6.0 in your example) should not be percentages. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume this was an honest mistake.
You need to consider the sample distributions of the polls. In your new example, are most of the polls showing +9, +10, +11 margins, with an outlier at -2 or 0? Or are they all between +5 and +8? This matters. Confidence intervals correct for this.
But if the sample distribution maintains the same nominal precision, with the poll mean and respective actual outcome floating around in tandem, the accuracy essentially remains the same. And this is where I assume you don't like the normalization I applied initially?
OMG, did you really just say this:
"I think I actually understand why you'd be asking this question now (see next answer). Comparing the actual election outcome (2.1) to the polling mean (3.3) normalizes the data. Just referring to the difference in nominal terms doesn't reflect the scale of the error. "They were only off by 1.2" is misleading."
?1?1?1?
Holy shit, dude, you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. None. Zero. Zip.
You haven't been just kidding all along. OMFG.
And I have to ask again, are you really, honestly too stupid to see how inane that is? I guess the answer is yes.
Here's another clue for you dude (or should I call you dudette?): The actual margin of victory has no, nada, zilch, zippo relevance in "normalizing" the data. Zip.
Seriously, are you really too stupid to understand that? If not, if you have any brain cells at all, go back to a 1.201 projected margin of victory versus an actual margin of 0.001 and contemplate how the poll was off by 120,000%.
Seriously, are you that stupid? I simply cannot believe it.
Ok, you're obviously just interested in trolling now.
You don't understand statistics, which is probably why you've never responded to my explanation proving that the polls should not be considered "accurate."
Constant Flagpolling must suck.
eric a blair wrote:
another compendium of DJT lies. But yeah, some trumpers will deny trump is a compulsive liar.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=region®ion=region&WT.nav=regionGeffen Records Inc. wrote:Ok then, list his twice a day lies, I'll wait for it.
You mad, brah?
eric a blair wrote:
another compendium of DJT lies. But yeah, some trumpers will deny trump is a compulsive liar.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=region®ion=region&WT.nav=regionGeffen Records Inc. wrote:Ok then, list his twice a day lies, I'll wait for it.
Several of us told you this whole Russia! conspiracy theory was going to end up backfiring on the Dems. Obstruction, you say?
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/23/senate-announced-probe-loretta-lynch-behavior-2016/EPIC Flagpole wrote:
eric a blair wrote:another compendium of DJT lies. But yeah, some trumpers will deny trump is a compulsive liar.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=region®ion=region&WT.nav=regionSeveral of us told you this whole Russia! conspiracy theory was going to end up backfiring on the Dems. Obstruction, you say?
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/23/senate-announced-probe-loretta-lynch-behavior-2016/
I'm totally fine with an investigation into that. Not sure why anyone would be against it. Clearly the line between the Justice Dep't and the WH is an important one and needs to be protected.
Don't you agree?
Lynch is going to have to turn on the Clintons or get put in the "pokey." I bet she cuts a deal then goes into hiding under a rock. It is the libbbtwat way.
The Clintons will be prosecute, tried, and shot for treason. The whole evil KKKlan of Klintons are as good as DEADâ—ï¸ðŸ¤˜
We The People are snapping necks and cashing checks😎🇺🇸
exthrower wrote:
eric a blair wrote:another compendium of DJT lies. But yeah, some trumpers will deny trump is a compulsive liar.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=region®ion=region&WT.nav=regionPull that flagpole out of your butt.
...and the inevitable gay talk from trumpers.
push them long enough and they will start talking about homosexual sex/gay rape or that sort of thing. It's pretty amazing how consistent that is.
Why do you think, ex? Any knowledge of 20c fascism in that brain of yours?
Here ya go big boy, 2 can play at that game;) When it's Hillary it's different, right?I'll wait for your excuses little man.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpwURzhChooGagpole will make excuses, as he calls Trump a liar...yeah right! Blairboy will make excuses. All the lefties will make excuses. Both Clintons are pathological liars, even worse than "NO earmarks Obama".
exthrower wrote:
eric a blair wrote:another compendium of DJT lies. But yeah, some trumpers will deny trump is a compulsive liar.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=region®ion=region&WT.nav=regionPull that flagpole out of your butt.
Fair or foul: Eurosport Olympic swimming announcer fired on the spot - for making a joke?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
I went to The States; everyone had "F350" trucks we don't have in the UK
What? Track and Field New picks Nuguse 3rd - Hocker 9th in Olympic 1500?
So they had a guy with one of his nuts hanging out by a kid at the opening Ceremony.....
Does anyone really want to see any more of Simone Biles? Come on - no one does!