So................what do you think the big announcement will be tomorrow?

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, I would.

Further proving you do not know what the term means.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Further proving you do not know what the term means.

You could have shortened all your answers on this topic to: "Nuh-UH!" because that's all they amounted to but with more words wasted.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You could have shortened all your answers on this topic to: "Nuh-UH!" because that's all the amounted to but with more words wasted.

The truth is painful, but it is good for you.

It is not difficult to pick the winner between Alabama and Austin Peay.

Nor is it difficult to pick the winner between Mississippi State and East Tennessee State.

Picking these games at only an 84% win percentage would be a terrible percentage.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The truth is painful, but it is good for you.

It is not difficult to pick the winner between Alabama and Austin Peay.

Nor is it difficult to pick the winner between Mississippi State and East Tennessee State.

Picking these games at only an 84% win percentage would be a terrible percentage.

You asked if 84% would be significant. It would. If you had picked winners so consistently, I would have to say "Golfing Gator knows what he's talking about when it comes to football games."

I'm guessing that you could show stats to indicate that those football games you listed would be predictible lopsided victories for one team or another.

If you could do the same for the 121 out of 162 House races in which Trump-endorsed candidates won, you would have done so already.

Is it really so hard for you to say, "I read it somewhere from a news organization I trust (like CNN)?"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You asked if 84% would be significant. It would. If you had picked winners so consistently, I would have to say "Golfing Gator knows what he's talking about when it comes to football games."

I asked if it would be statistically significant, not just significant.

I'm guessing that you could show stats to indicate that those football games you listed would be predictible lopsided victories for one team or another.

Nope, just common sense and knowledge of the game. I would not waste my time finding stats to prove that Alabama would beat Austin Peay 99 times out of 100. That is like finding stats that the sun will come up in the east in the morning.

If you could do the same for the 121 out of 162 House races in which Trump-endorsed candidates won, you would have done so already.

There is no reason to do such a thing, I gave you examples and you either ignored them or dismissed them just as you would if I gave you all 121 races.

If you do not understand that some districts are safely in the hands of one party or the other, there is nothing anyone can do to help you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I asked if it would be statistically significant, not just significant.

And I said that they would be. You need to retake basic statistics, if you ever took it in the first place, if you think that would not statistically indicate a correlation between you picking teams and their winning.

Nope, just common sense and knowledge of the game. I would not waste my time finding stats to prove that Alabama would beat Austin Peay 99 times out of 100. That is like finding stats that the sun will come up in the east in the morning.

Oh, so even in the case of picking football winners, you did no research, just "Bryant Gumble (or whoever) said so?" So why not just say, "Rachel Maddow (or whoever) said so?"

There is no reason to do such a thing, I gave you examples and you either ignored them or dismissed them just as you would if I gave you all 121 races.

If you do not understand that some districts are safely in the hands of one party or the other, there is nothing anyone can do to help you.

I do understand that. I don't buy that that many fall into that category and that Trump deliberately only endorsed guaranteed winners. That was your claim, you can give evidence for it or just keep stalling. Your call.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And I said that they would be. You need to retake basic statistics, if you ever took it in the first place, if you think that would not statistically indicate a correlation between you picking teams and their winning.

And you would be wrong because you need actual context to determine statistical significance. And my picking the team has no bearing on them winning. My picking the teams has nothing at all to do with if they win or not.

Oh, so even in the case of picking football winners, you did no research, just "Bryant Gumble (or whoever) said so?" So why not just say, "Rachel Maddow (or whoever) said so?"

Nope, I do not go by what anyone says but my own knowledge from watching college football for 45 years. You seem to think that because you need someone to tell you what to think, that the rest of us do as well.

I do understand that. I don't buy that that many fall into that category

Incumbents in congress are reelected at a greater than 90% rate, yet you do not think that 84% of the races fall into the "cannot lose" category?

Really?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Incumbents in congress are reelected at a greater than 90% rate, yet you do not think that 84% of the races fall into the "cannot lose" category?

Really?

So, your claim is that all of the winning candidates that Trump endorsed were incumbents?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, your claim is that all of the winning candidates that Trump endorsed were incumbents?

Most of them, yes.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Most of them, yes.

How many?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How many?

Most of them

 

[Seymour Flops]

Most of them

This you know how?

 

[sartre play]

He really had to run, watch now for every fund raising gamut known too man.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This you know how?

I pay attention.

Give it a try some time, who knows you might actually enjoy thinking for yourself for a change

 

[Seymour Flops]

I pay attention.

Give it a try some time, who knows you might actually enjoy thinking for yourself for a change

So you wont back up your claim?

Then your claim is not worth any further attention.

 

[App'z]

Repubs have peed their pants with the Womans Right of Body decision. Forever walking with pee on their feet. Women will not forgive em!
Plus they are consistantly proving they refuse to accept the Vote of Law, is firm in its decision. They are firing them bad ass people! The Donald wears heal lifts, the wife is taller then him in her heals and so is Barron. Ego trip Donald, egg on face.

 

[App'z]

Mash Potatoes with Peelings / Feelings says it all, the Real Donald's shoe pic.

 

[App'z]

Truth Social has The Donalds contract, he can't return to Twitter. Ha, Ha, thas a joke, 5 mil. vs 88 million. The Donald never keeps his word. Trust it.

 

[App'z]

It's a pure business decision of 90,000,000 followers maybe proving business over pleasure/truth/honesty?

Trump’s Twitter account restored by Musk

 

[App'z]

Trump argues sworn declarations by FBI agents can’t be trusted because they lie ‘all the time’

Well, Don't let the Cat catch you lying tonged Donald! Ha Ha you been once again fingered as an again in your own challenge to the Justice department of the USA that you swore to uphold. YeP, The Donald you swore to uphold the Constitution of the USA and you are a POC lying pos. Yep Donald you are a really - really big liar! Kiss me. .....