Food stamp recipients down 2M under Trump, USDA figures show

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 hours ago, jg121783 said:

 What polls are you looking at? One of the more recent polls has him tied whit Obama's approval at the same point in his presidency (with Trump getting 3 times as much negative coverage). I know you really want to believe what you just said but the numbers say otherwise.

 

   Pick one. It's not the media's fault. Trump was a grade A jerk before the media ever covered anything about him. He was an unpopular person before he ever got into politics and he hasn't done anything to change that. His list of detractors is not shrinking. This ongoing insistence on blaming all of Trumps faults on someone or something else is pathetic. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

Lower your standards and you'll be more pleasantly surprised.

 

Also - As the true middle of the road and the champion of transparency -

 

Let the record be amended to show that it was actually JimandChristy who first deviated to approval ratings, away from "economic successes" or whatever vague topic was present before. That was then followed by Bill asking a question which perpetuated the off topic deviation.

 

Bravo nothing slides by you does it. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

You sure do a good job of anwering other’s posts for them.  Must come with the territory, I reckon.

 

But I say it DOES matter.  If you know of NO ONE in your circle of friends and family, that extends to their friends and family, who is getting polled, and no one else here does either, it begs the question of who IS actually getting polled?  Never mind the questions themselves being rigged in one direction or another...  

 

Makes me think they are either calling no one and it’s made up, or they are calling the same numbers over and over (because they answer?), which severely brings the randomization into question.  

It's called the I slept at a holiday inn last night effect 🤣

[bcking 3,157]

29 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Bravo nothing slides by you does it. 

Someone on this forum has to be balanced and transparent. I figure I can take up the mantle.

 

It's a thankless job really.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Does an approval rating make one a better or more effective president?  I don’t think so.  It just means that of those polled (a cherry-picked few, it seems), the majority don’t approve.  

 

Trouble is, that is not what matters.  What matters is what he does that is positive for our country.

 

Positivity and Trump ...two things that will never meet

[yuna628 9,676]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

While I appreciate you thinking enough of me to refer to me as a brick wall (that WAS a compliment, right?), tell us... have YOU ever been polled about the presidency?  Or anything else?

A very dear relative of mine was a pollster, in fact... he pretty much helped out both parties from the 70s onwards with reinventing how the polling system works. He helped people get elected and collected excellent data. My dad and my other siblings used to go up to the Hill back in the day and poll people for campaigns. I was too little back then, but I would have gladly been on to assist.. because he was quite a numbers guy, and a great person to go to if you needed help crunching data for an election. Just because you or others you know haven't been polled means pretty much nothing statistically. Based on your other posts you seem to think that polling is faked or rigged. Internal polls can have problems but it certainly isn't faked or rigged. There are a lot of reasons why polls can be very right and can be very wrong but none of it has to do with the fact you might not know anyone personally that's been polled. In the old days probability sampling was used with RDD. Not sure if there are statistics on how accurate they were back then compared to today, but as people chose to stop responding to them (out of some sort of strange paranoia or simple annoyance at being asked) and the costs of conducting such research went up - a process called non-probability sampling started being favored (even though it can at times be less accurate - cheaper doesn't always mean better as with anything these days). Today there are also people like Nate Silver, that utilize algorithms and different ways of number crunching the polls themselves (which can also go very right or very wrong... as my husband specializes in writing such programs he tells me numerous ways things can go wrong). A common misconception of people who say they have never been polled, or don't know others who have been polled, so how can they actually be representative within a sampling result, have been discussed by the pollsters themselves numerous times. The chances of you being chosen are tiny... just as the odds of being struck by lightning is somewhere around 1 in 700,000 and the odds of you being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3000. Do you know that many persons?

 

Oh, it's always a compliment, even when appearing snarky. And especially when I tease NB about rollovers.

 

4 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

High standards kinda gal, yet you hang out with us. How do you explain the contradiction?

I'm a woman. We're mysterious like that.

[bcking 3,157]

Cool so she pretty much covers our first 1 in 118,000.

 

Just gotta meet like 230,000 people who haven't been polled for our doubts about polling being real to have any significance....

 

Love to see IDWAF come back to us with his personal list. He can start.

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by bcking

[spookyturtle 9,465]

That's good. Where I am, there are plenty of job openings. If you want to work, there's work out there. And I am all for helping people who need assistance, if there are less who need it, all the better for them and the country as a whole. 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

I dont know if anyone mentioned this or not.. But does the OP know that Trump would have to pass some type of legislation then wait for the Congressional fiscal year for said budget to kick in.
Until then technically.. its still Obama's budget and Obama's economy..

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 1/5/2018 at 11:20 PM, yuna628 said:

A very dear relative of mine was a pollster, in fact... he pretty much helped out both parties from the 70s onwards with reinventing how the polling system works. He helped people get elected and collected excellent data. My dad and my other siblings used to go up to the Hill back in the day and poll people for campaigns. I was too little back then, but I would have gladly been on to assist.. because he was quite a numbers guy, and a great person to go to if you needed help crunching data for an election. Just because you or others you know haven't been polled means pretty much nothing statistically. Based on your other posts you seem to think that polling is faked or rigged. Internal polls can have problems but it certainly isn't faked or rigged. There are a lot of reasons why polls can be very right and can be very wrong but none of it has to do with the fact you might not know anyone personally that's been polled. In the old days probability sampling was used with RDD. Not sure if there are statistics on how accurate they were back then compared to today, but as people chose to stop responding to them (out of some sort of strange paranoia or simple annoyance at being asked) and the costs of conducting such research went up - a process called non-probability sampling started being favored (even though it can at times be less accurate - cheaper doesn't always mean better as with anything these days). Today there are also people like Nate Silver, that utilize algorithms and different ways of number crunching the polls themselves (which can also go very right or very wrong... as my husband specializes in writing such programs he tells me numerous ways things can go wrong). A common misconception of people who say they have never been polled, or don't know others who have been polled, so how can they actually be representative within a sampling result, have been discussed by the pollsters themselves numerous times. The chances of you being chosen are tiny... just as the odds of being struck by lightning is somewhere around 1 in 700,000 and the odds of you being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3000. Do you know that many persons?

 

Oh, it's always a compliment, even when appearing snarky. And especially when I tease NB about rollovers.

 

I'm a woman. We're mysterious like that.

So the short answer is.... no.  Got it.

 

Are you letting bcking use your account now?

[bcking 3,157]

6 hours ago, IDWAF said:

So the short answer is.... no.  Got it.

 

Are you letting bcking use your account now?

No disrespect to Yuna but while I agree with her post, I would have added several line breaks if I had written it

 

The concept that something might be fake just because you know no one that has experienced it is incredibly concrete thinking and is something I'd expect if it was explained to a 7-11 year old in an early developmental stage of critical thinking. 

 

I'm not sure we can help you out at this point. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

49 minutes ago, bcking said:

No disrespect to Yuna but while I agree with her post, I would have added several line breaks if I had written it

 

The concept that something might be fake just because you know no one that has experienced it is incredibly concrete thinking and is something I'd expect if it was explained to a 7-11 year old in an early developmental stage of critical thinking. 

 

I'm not sure we can help you out at this point. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Using your mouse, can you please carefully highlight (preferab;y in bold) where I said the polls were fake?  I think I called into question their actual randomness, and perhaps the potential repetition of those polled.  Since you have no hard data on who was polled, or where, or when, then you will have a hard time proving me wrong, just as I will have a hard time proving me right.  Gonna have to call it gut instinct, I reckon.

 

Sitting over her in my little world, I am righter than you on this one.  Na-nah an-nah boo-booh!!

 

(You also likely would have added several more lines to it as well)

Edited January 7, 2018 by IDWAF

[yuna628 9,676]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 7:13 PM, IDWAF said:

You sure do a good job of anwering other’s posts for them.  Must come with the territory, I reckon.

 

But I say it DOES matter.  If you know of NO ONE in your circle of friends and family, that extends to their friends and family, who is getting polled, and no one else here does either, it begs the question of who IS actually getting polled?  Never mind the questions themselves being rigged in one direction or another...  

 

Makes me think they are either calling no one and it’s made up, or they are calling the same numbers over and over (because they answer?), which severely brings the randomization into question.  

 

7 hours ago, IDWAF said:

So the short answer is.... no.  Got it.

 

Are you letting bcking use your account now?

No, the answer is the one you don't want to read text to look for. Me personally? No. But know people who have been polled? Yes. And further know people who did poll those people? Yes. Why exactly would I let someone I don't know use my account? Tsk.

1 hour ago, bcking said:

No disrespect to Yuna but while I agree with her post, I would have added several line breaks if I had written it

 

The concept that something might be fake just because you know no one that has experienced it is incredibly concrete thinking and is something I'd expect if it was explained to a 7-11 year old in an early developmental stage of critical thinking. 

 

I'm not sure we can help you out at this point. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Like I said, something something brick walls? 

14 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Using your mouse, can you please carefully highlight (preferab;y in bold) where I said the polls were fake?  I think I called into question their actual randomness, and perhaps the potential repetition of those polled.  Since you have no hard data on who was polled, or where, or when, then you will have a hard time proving me wrong, just as I will have a hard time proving me right.  Gonna have to call it gut instinct, I reckon.

 

Sitting over her in my little world, I am righter than you on this one.  Na-nah an-nah boo-booh!!

 

(You also likely would have added several more lines to it as well)

I thought I'd take a shot at answering the bolded requested portion above. But do ignore it if you'd rather bcking highlight it themselves. The internet is a vast place, full of ways to research how polling works. It took the place of going to a library I'm afraid and reading books about the same subject, but both are useful for the curious looking for data and proof.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

26 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Using your mouse, can you please carefully highlight (preferab;y in bold) where I said the polls were fake?  I think I called into question their actual randomness, and perhaps the potential repetition of those polled.  Since you have no hard data on who was polled, or where, or when, then you will have a hard time proving me wrong, just as I will have a hard time proving me right.  Gonna have to call it gut instinct, I reckon.

 

Sitting over her in my little world, I am righter than you on this one.  Na-nah an-nah boo-booh!!

 

(You also likely would have added several more lines to it as well)

and called you a 7 year old in the process

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

 

No, the answer is the one you don't want to read text to look for. Me personally? No. But know people who have been polled? Yes. And further know people who did poll those people? Yes. Why exactly would I let someone I don't know use my account? Tsk.

Like I said, something something brick walls? 

I thought I'd take a shot at answering the bolded requested portion above. But do ignore it if you'd rather bcking highlight it themselves. The internet is a vast place, full of ways to research how polling works. It took the place of going to a library I'm afraid and reading books about the same subject, but both are useful for the curious looking for data and proof.

You would have to be genuinely curious though, and I don't believe that is the case here.

 

9 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

and called you a 7 year old in the process

Typical response from you. I said his level of thinking on this topic is similar to that age range. That doesn't mean I called him that age. I know he is capable of much more when he wants to. It's pretty clear in this case he is intentionally employing more concrete, basic thinking because it suits him.