President Trump

[PawDawg]

You’re confusing being right and being lucky. If all you’re working on is your hunch, you remember when you were right and forget when you’re wrong. If you’re working off more than your hunch, I’d love to see it and interact with it myself. Of course, all my requests for quantification have been turned down.

I’ll concede that working off hunches is easier.

No, stats first have to be considered for their value. Were they fairly gathered? Did the pollsters ask fair questions? Did they ask a random or stacked group of people? This applies to 2016 and that the numbers never made sense.

This ridiculous 42 million starving American number was not even presented with one of the bias studies that obviously can't back up the propaganda. I considered the number for it's value and called BS. "suffering from hunger" he said with no information to back it up.

[Guisslapp]

No, stats first have to be considered for their value. Were they fairly gathered? Did the pollsters ask fair questions? Did they ask a random or stacked group of people? This applies to 2016 and that the numbers never made sense.

This ridiculous 42 million starving American number was not even presented with one of the bias studies that obviously can't back up the propaganda. I considered the number for it's value and called BS. "suffering from hunger" he said with no information to back it up.

People were embarrassed to admit they were voting for Trump, as they should have been. Polls are less reliable than other statistical methods.

[johnnylightnin]

No, stats first have to be considered for their value. Were they fairly gathered? Did the pollsters ask fair questions? Did they ask a random or stacked group of people? This applies to 2016 and that the numbers never made...

If I believed all those who reject stats they don’t like had guns me through the questions you posted, I’d have no problem with their rejections. Are you claiming most have? Have you? I’ve asked you to explain the why several times on a number of topics...usually don’t get a response.

[PawDawg]

If I believed all those who reject stats they don’t like had guns me through the questions you posted, I’d have no problem with their rejections. Are you claiming most have? Have you? I’ve asked you to explain the why several times on a number of topics...usually don’t get a response.

I've replied every time based on my opinion, logic, and available stats. It was obvious in 2016 that blacks were not being asked the right questions. We knew after the fact that union workers were not being asked which was important because Hillary had told them they were no longer needed (coal miners). The polls never made sense.

This latest crap about the 42 million hungry Americans...how can you prove it? That's the first thing I asked to see so I could evaluate the information gathered.

[johnnylightnin]

I've replied every time based on my opinion, logic, and available stats. It was obvious in 2016 that blacks were not being asked the right questions. We knew after the fact that union workers were not being asked which was important because Hillary had told them they were no longer needed (coal miners). The polls never made sense.

This latest crap about the 42 million hungry Americans...how can you prove it? That's the first thing I asked to see so I could evaluate the information gathered.

You’ve provided your opinion plenty. The other stuff, not so much. Doesn’t really matter to me. I am comfortable with my ability to wade through bias and BS. I’ve got a pretty long record of doing so here at BBB.

It’s troubling when a group chooses to suspend their critical thinking just so they can “win”. Maybe that’s not you, but it’s a lot of folks...Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike.

[PawDawg]

You’ve provided your opinion plenty. The other stuff, not so much. Doesn’t really matter to me. I am comfortable with my ability to wade through bias and BS. I’ve got a pretty long record of doing so here at BBB.

It’s troubling when a group chooses to suspend their critical thinking just so they can “win”. Maybe that’s not you, but it’s a lot of folks...Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike.

Logic = critical thinking. Was not logical to believe Hillary was leading by so much. It's insane to believe The hunger thing

[johnnylightnin]

Logic = critical thinking. Was not logical to believe Hillary was leading by so much. It's insane to believe The hunger thing

Quantify the insanity. “I figure” doesn’t cut it. Show me numbers.

[johnnylightnin]

Logic = critical thinking. Was not logical to believe Hillary was leading by so much. It's insane to believe The hunger thing

Quantify the insanity. “I figure” doesn’t cut it. Show me numbers.

Here's the USDA launch site for the report: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publication...s/?pubid=84972

What were your issues with their methods?

[dawg80]

That report is for 2016. Trump didn't take office until January, 2017. So, if you have any concerns about 12.3% of American families being "food insecure" then, ask your pal obummer about it.

I'm not sure what they mean by that anyway. Does it mean, as the report states, "at some point" during that calendar year 12.3% of households were like, OMG! not sure where our next meal is coming from! Well...were they merely concerned, or did they actually miss a meal? Big difference.

I've seen stats on what they call "food deserts," which is the absence of access to HEALTHY food sources, like fresh fruits and vegetables. I am involved to a limited extent with a non-profit organization trying to address the "food desert" issue in Natchitoches-Red River Parishes. And, I've been asked to join a more ambitious endeavor to develop self-sufficient communities aimed at our Veterans. This will include affordable housing and small plots of food production, including using hydroponics.

There is no reason, none! for any American family to be in a position of "food insecurity," if I am understanding the definition of it. That would have to be terrible mismanagement and outright negligence if any family experiences this. And I'm speaking of THEIR negligence, like the heads of the household.

[PawDawg]

Quantify the insanity. “I figure” doesn’t cut it. Show me numbers.

The report justifies government aid. It never says anything about people being hungry after they receive the aid. Read the numbers yourself.

[johnnylightnin]

The report justifies government aid. It never says anything about people being hungry after they receive the aid. Read the numbers yourself.

Did you? Are you positing that a problem has been solved simply because there is a government program in place?

Wow! Guess I had you pegged all wrong!

[PawDawg]

Did you? Are you positing that a problem has been solved simply because there is a government program in place?

Wow! Guess I had you pegged all wrong!

That was never the argument from me. My message was BS on the 45 million being hungry.

I will say that the problem will never be "solved" by giving away free stuff.

[johnnylightnin]

My message was BS on the 45 million being hungry.

And you've still not even attempted to quantify of support your message except to say that it can't be because we have government programs for that!

[PawDawg]

And you've still not even attempted to quantify of support your message except to say that it can't be because we have government programs for that!

Good grief man! I was right in what I said. We DO NOT have 45 million hungry people in our nation. It was a typical liberal misuse of information. I pointed that out immediately. The farm bill information you provided proved the point I did not need to read because I am familiar with the poorly named farm bill.

Here's the way it went...

1 in 6 Americans suffer from “food insecurity”. That is 42 million Americans suffering from hunger.

total BS. Let's see your cherry picked stats to back that up

[johnnylightnin]

Good grief man! I was right in what I said. We DO NOT have 45 million hungry people in our nation. It was a typical liberal misuse of information. I pointed that out immediately. The farm bill information you provided proved the point I did not need to read because I am familiar with the poorly named farm bill.

Here's the way it went...

So, you have no qualms with the “liberal stats”, you disagree with GS’s using “hunger” instead of “food insecurity”?

Since you refuse to interact with the actual study I assume you agree with it?

I don’t care either way. I was just pointing out that you don’t seriously engage with something you’ve already decided is wrong.

You proved my point.