info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
ABC polling...you Dems don't have a lot to crow about.
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Dene
Apr 23, 2017, 5:54:57 PM4/23/17
to
President Trump at 100 Days: No honeymoon, but no regrets (POLL)
By GARY LANGER
There's no honeymoon for Donald Trump in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, but also no regrets: He approaches his 100th day in office with the lowest approval rating at this point of any president in polls since 1945 –- yet 96 percent of those who supported him in November say they'd do it again today.
His challenges are considerable. Majorities say Trump lacks the judgment and the temperament it takes to serve effectively. Six in 10 doubt his honesty and trustworthiness, see him as out of touch and don't think he understands the problems of people like them. Fifty-six percent say he hasn't accomplished much in his first 100 days. And 55 percent say he doesn't follow a consistent set of principles in setting policy (though fewer see this as a problem, 48 percent).
All told, 42 percent of Americans approve of Trump's performance as president, while 53 percent disapprove. That compares to an average of 69-19 percent for past presidents at or near 100 days in office -– for example, 69-26 percent for Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.
Still, the national survey also finds some brighter spots for the president –- chiefly in pushing for jobs and in foreign policy –- as well as deep popularity problems for the opposition party. Sixty-seven percent say the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most Americans, even more than say the same about Trump, and similar to the Republican Party (62 percent). That's a steeply negative turn for the Democrats, 19 percentage points more critical than when last asked three years ago, including especially steep losses in their own base.
Trump's better grades include broad 73 percent approval of his pressuring companies to keep jobs in the United States –- even most Democrats, liberals and nonwhites approve, three groups that are broadly critical of Trump more generally. And more than half, 53 percent, see him as a strong leader, although that compares with 77 percent for Obama at this stage.
On one specific issue, a plurality, 46 percent, says he's handling the situation with North Korea "about right," as opposed to being too aggressive (37 percent) or too cautious (just 7 percent). Similarly, a recent ABC/Post poll found 51 percent support for Trump's missile strikes on Syria; together these results make his foreign policy a comparative bright spot. They're also a contrast with Obama, seen by 53 percent as too cautious in his foreign policy in fall 2014, as he dealt with Syria and Russian intervention in Ukraine.
As noted, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds no evidence of buyer's remorse among Trump supporters. Among those who report having voted for him in November, 96 percent today say it was the right thing to do; a mere 2 percent regret it. And if a rerun of the election were held today, the poll indicates even the possibility of a Trump victory in the popular vote among 2016 voters.
In two break-even results, Americans divide, 44-41 percent, on whether Trump is keeping most of his campaign promises, and likewise divide, 35-35 percent, on whether he's doing a better or worse job than they expected. Views turn negative, as noted, on how much Trump has accomplished in his first three months. Forty-two percent say a great deal or good amount, but 56 percent say not much or nothing.
Again, Obama scored far better on all three of these measures at his 100th day, 60-26 percent on keeping his promises, 54-18 percent on performing better vs. worse than expected and 63-36 percent on his accomplishments.
There are difficulties for Trump in other results, as well. Just 37 percent approve of the major changes in federal spending he's proposed (50 percent disapprove) and only 34 percent approve of his having given his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, major positions in his administration (61 percent disapprove). (There are only three groups in which more than half approve of these appointments –- Republicans, 69 percent; evangelical white Protestants, 56 percent; and conservatives, 51 percent.) And rejecting Trump's criticisms, the public by 58-36 percent says the federal courts that have blocked his immigration orders are "acting rightly as a check on the president's powers" rather than wrongly interfering with them.
The president does better on another item on which he's been criticized in some quarters –- spending substantial time at commercial properties he owns, chiefly his Mar-a-Lago resort. Forty-three percent see this as a conflict of interest because it promotes those properties, but 54 percent say it's not a conflict because he has the right to go where he wants.
The 100-day point has been used as a benchmark since Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, but, like any such time stamp, it has questionable predictive value. As noted, it usually marks the height of a president's honeymoon in public opinion. It's also situational. In available data, the highest rating at or near 100 days was Harry Truman's 87 percent in a Gallup poll when he took office after the Roosevelt's death; yet Truman's career average was 47 percent approval. The lowest at 100 days was Gerald Ford's 48 percent after he succeeded (and pardoned) Richard Nixon, yet Ford's career average was about the same as Truman's. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had 63 and 71 percent 100-day approval ratings –- yet neither won a second term.
Current politics, moreover, are marked by especially sharp partisanship, a central reason for Trump's comparatively poor rating. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of his job performance; just 12 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents agree. Obama at 100 days did better in his base, with 93 percent approval from leaned Democrats, but also had 40 percent from leaned Republicans.
As mentioned, Trump's challenges don't mean the opposition is in good shape. In March 2014, 48 percent of Americans said the Democratic Party was out of touch with the concerns of most people. Today 67 percent say so. And the biggest change has occurred chiefly among the party's own typical loyalists, with "out of touch" ratings up 33 points among liberals, 30 points among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 26 points among moderates and nonwhites alike.
Vote again?
Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they’d stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.
That's not because former Clinton supporters would now back Trump; only 2 percent of them say they'd do so, similar to the 1 percent of Trump voters who say they'd switch to Clinton. Instead, they're more apt to say they'd vote for a third-party candidate or wouldn’t vote.
In a cautionary note to her party, Clinton's 6-point drop in a hypothetical mulligan election relates to views of whether the Democratic Party is in touch with peoples' concerns. Although the sample sizes are small, those who say the party is out of touch are less likely to say they'd support Clinton again, compared with those who see it as in touch.
Still, there's no strong evidence that defectors primarily come from groups that favored Bernie Sanders in the primary. There are no broad differences by age, and liberals are 9 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to stick with Clinton. Similarly, nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.
Approval groups
Trump's approval rating among groups differs in familiar patterns from the election. Fifty-four percent of whites approve of his job performance; just 19 percent of nonwhites (including 22 percent of Hispanics and 6 percent of blacks) agree. His approval rating is 15 points lower among the youngest adults compared with seniors. It's 67 percent among conservatives vs. 37 percent among moderates and 9 percent among liberals. And it's 73 percent among evangelical white Protestants, a GOP mainstay.
Trump's rating is 10 points higher among whites who lack a college degree than among those who have one. Indeed, again echoing the election, he reaches 65 percent approval among non-college white men, vs. 40 percent among college-educated white women.
The economys another factor; while it doesn’t guarantee presidential approval, a strong or improving economy at least makes it easier to achieve. Today 30 percent say the economy is improving, vs. 18 percent who say it’s getting worse, with a plurality, 49 percent, saying it’s staying the same. Among those who think it’s improving, 83 percent approve of Trump’s job performance, while among those who think it’s staying the same, just 29 percent approve, as do only 10 percent of those who say it’s getting worse.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
Of course, the result likely is bi-directional – views of the economy color views of the president, but views of the president also influence views of the economy. Indeed, 62 percent of Republicans think the economy’s improving; just a quarter of independents and 12 percent of Democrats agree.
By GARY LANGER
There's no honeymoon for Donald Trump in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, but also no regrets: He approaches his 100th day in office with the lowest approval rating at this point of any president in polls since 1945 –- yet 96 percent of those who supported him in November say they'd do it again today.
His challenges are considerable. Majorities say Trump lacks the judgment and the temperament it takes to serve effectively. Six in 10 doubt his honesty and trustworthiness, see him as out of touch and don't think he understands the problems of people like them. Fifty-six percent say he hasn't accomplished much in his first 100 days. And 55 percent say he doesn't follow a consistent set of principles in setting policy (though fewer see this as a problem, 48 percent).
All told, 42 percent of Americans approve of Trump's performance as president, while 53 percent disapprove. That compares to an average of 69-19 percent for past presidents at or near 100 days in office -– for example, 69-26 percent for Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.
Still, the national survey also finds some brighter spots for the president –- chiefly in pushing for jobs and in foreign policy –- as well as deep popularity problems for the opposition party. Sixty-seven percent say the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most Americans, even more than say the same about Trump, and similar to the Republican Party (62 percent). That's a steeply negative turn for the Democrats, 19 percentage points more critical than when last asked three years ago, including especially steep losses in their own base.
Trump's better grades include broad 73 percent approval of his pressuring companies to keep jobs in the United States –- even most Democrats, liberals and nonwhites approve, three groups that are broadly critical of Trump more generally. And more than half, 53 percent, see him as a strong leader, although that compares with 77 percent for Obama at this stage.
On one specific issue, a plurality, 46 percent, says he's handling the situation with North Korea "about right," as opposed to being too aggressive (37 percent) or too cautious (just 7 percent). Similarly, a recent ABC/Post poll found 51 percent support for Trump's missile strikes on Syria; together these results make his foreign policy a comparative bright spot. They're also a contrast with Obama, seen by 53 percent as too cautious in his foreign policy in fall 2014, as he dealt with Syria and Russian intervention in Ukraine.
As noted, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds no evidence of buyer's remorse among Trump supporters. Among those who report having voted for him in November, 96 percent today say it was the right thing to do; a mere 2 percent regret it. And if a rerun of the election were held today, the poll indicates even the possibility of a Trump victory in the popular vote among 2016 voters.
In two break-even results, Americans divide, 44-41 percent, on whether Trump is keeping most of his campaign promises, and likewise divide, 35-35 percent, on whether he's doing a better or worse job than they expected. Views turn negative, as noted, on how much Trump has accomplished in his first three months. Forty-two percent say a great deal or good amount, but 56 percent say not much or nothing.
Again, Obama scored far better on all three of these measures at his 100th day, 60-26 percent on keeping his promises, 54-18 percent on performing better vs. worse than expected and 63-36 percent on his accomplishments.
There are difficulties for Trump in other results, as well. Just 37 percent approve of the major changes in federal spending he's proposed (50 percent disapprove) and only 34 percent approve of his having given his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, major positions in his administration (61 percent disapprove). (There are only three groups in which more than half approve of these appointments –- Republicans, 69 percent; evangelical white Protestants, 56 percent; and conservatives, 51 percent.) And rejecting Trump's criticisms, the public by 58-36 percent says the federal courts that have blocked his immigration orders are "acting rightly as a check on the president's powers" rather than wrongly interfering with them.
The president does better on another item on which he's been criticized in some quarters –- spending substantial time at commercial properties he owns, chiefly his Mar-a-Lago resort. Forty-three percent see this as a conflict of interest because it promotes those properties, but 54 percent say it's not a conflict because he has the right to go where he wants.
The 100-day point has been used as a benchmark since Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, but, like any such time stamp, it has questionable predictive value. As noted, it usually marks the height of a president's honeymoon in public opinion. It's also situational. In available data, the highest rating at or near 100 days was Harry Truman's 87 percent in a Gallup poll when he took office after the Roosevelt's death; yet Truman's career average was 47 percent approval. The lowest at 100 days was Gerald Ford's 48 percent after he succeeded (and pardoned) Richard Nixon, yet Ford's career average was about the same as Truman's. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had 63 and 71 percent 100-day approval ratings –- yet neither won a second term.
Current politics, moreover, are marked by especially sharp partisanship, a central reason for Trump's comparatively poor rating. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of his job performance; just 12 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents agree. Obama at 100 days did better in his base, with 93 percent approval from leaned Democrats, but also had 40 percent from leaned Republicans.
As mentioned, Trump's challenges don't mean the opposition is in good shape. In March 2014, 48 percent of Americans said the Democratic Party was out of touch with the concerns of most people. Today 67 percent say so. And the biggest change has occurred chiefly among the party's own typical loyalists, with "out of touch" ratings up 33 points among liberals, 30 points among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 26 points among moderates and nonwhites alike.
Vote again?
Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they’d stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.
That's not because former Clinton supporters would now back Trump; only 2 percent of them say they'd do so, similar to the 1 percent of Trump voters who say they'd switch to Clinton. Instead, they're more apt to say they'd vote for a third-party candidate or wouldn’t vote.
In a cautionary note to her party, Clinton's 6-point drop in a hypothetical mulligan election relates to views of whether the Democratic Party is in touch with peoples' concerns. Although the sample sizes are small, those who say the party is out of touch are less likely to say they'd support Clinton again, compared with those who see it as in touch.
Still, there's no strong evidence that defectors primarily come from groups that favored Bernie Sanders in the primary. There are no broad differences by age, and liberals are 9 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to stick with Clinton. Similarly, nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.
Approval groups
Trump's approval rating among groups differs in familiar patterns from the election. Fifty-four percent of whites approve of his job performance; just 19 percent of nonwhites (including 22 percent of Hispanics and 6 percent of blacks) agree. His approval rating is 15 points lower among the youngest adults compared with seniors. It's 67 percent among conservatives vs. 37 percent among moderates and 9 percent among liberals. And it's 73 percent among evangelical white Protestants, a GOP mainstay.
Trump's rating is 10 points higher among whites who lack a college degree than among those who have one. Indeed, again echoing the election, he reaches 65 percent approval among non-college white men, vs. 40 percent among college-educated white women.
The economys another factor; while it doesn’t guarantee presidential approval, a strong or improving economy at least makes it easier to achieve. Today 30 percent say the economy is improving, vs. 18 percent who say it’s getting worse, with a plurality, 49 percent, saying it’s staying the same. Among those who think it’s improving, 83 percent approve of Trump’s job performance, while among those who think it’s staying the same, just 29 percent approve, as do only 10 percent of those who say it’s getting worse.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
Of course, the result likely is bi-directional – views of the economy color views of the president, but views of the president also influence views of the economy. Indeed, 62 percent of Republicans think the economy’s improving; just a quarter of independents and 12 percent of Democrats agree.
John B.
Apr 23, 2017, 8:14:15 PM4/23/17
to
Alan Baker
Apr 23, 2017, 8:21:56 PM4/23/17
to
vote for Clinton again...
Dene
Apr 24, 2017, 1:26:59 AM4/24/17
to
eternalseptember.org (thank Carbs)
1. The Democrats are not gaining ground. The popular vote would go to
Trump if the election were repeated.
2. There is no place for Trump to go except up...and the opportunities
abound, with the economic numbers, the view of the polled majority that
he is a strong leader, and an agenda most Americans can agree with. Now
if only the Republicans can unify and Trump not get in the way.
-Greg
John B.
Apr 24, 2017, 10:31:57 AM4/24/17
to
>
> 2. There is no place for Trump to go except up...and the opportunities
> abound, with the economic numbers, the view of the polled majority that
> he is a strong leader, and an agenda most Americans can agree with. Now
> if only the Republicans can unify and Trump not get in the way.
No, he can go further down. The view of the polled majority is that he
> 2. There is no place for Trump to go except up...and the opportunities
> abound, with the economic numbers, the view of the polled majority that
> he is a strong leader, and an agenda most Americans can agree with. Now
> if only the Republicans can unify and Trump not get in the way.
sucks as president. The fact that he polls well on a couple of sub-topics
is immaterial.
>
> -Greg
Alan Baker
Apr 24, 2017, 12:29:33 PM4/24/17
to
On 2017-04-23 10:26 PM, Dene wrote:
>>> Of course, the result likely is bi-directional – views of the economy
>>> color views of the president, but views of the president also
>>> influence views of the economy. Indeed, 62 percent of Republicans
>>> think the economy’s improving; just a quarter of independents and 12
>>> percent of Democrats agree.
>>
>> What is it in here that you see as favorable to Trump?
>>
> Couple of things, on my first post using Thunderbird and
> eternalseptember.org (thank Carbs)
>
> 1. The Democrats are not gaining ground. The popular vote would go to
> Trump if the election were repeated.
1. Nailed it.
>>> Of course, the result likely is bi-directional – views of the economy
>>> color views of the president, but views of the president also
>>> influence views of the economy. Indeed, 62 percent of Republicans
>>> think the economy’s improving; just a quarter of independents and 12
>>> percent of Democrats agree.
>>
>> What is it in here that you see as favorable to Trump?
>>
> Couple of things, on my first post using Thunderbird and
> eternalseptember.org (thank Carbs)
>
> 1. The Democrats are not gaining ground. The popular vote would go to
> Trump if the election were repeated.
2. That's not really a conclusion you could draw.
>
> 2. There is no place for Trump to go except up...and the opportunities
> abound, with the economic numbers, the view of the polled majority that
> he is a strong leader, and an agenda most Americans can agree with. Now
> if only the Republicans can unify and Trump not get in the way.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Dene
Apr 24, 2017, 12:39:22 PM4/24/17
to
>> 2. There is no place for Trump to go except up...and the opportunities
>> abound, with the economic numbers, the view of the polled majority that
>> he is a strong leader, and an agenda most Americans can agree with. Now
>> if only the Republicans can unify and Trump not get in the way.
>
> No, he can go further down. The view of the polled majority is that he
> sucks as president. The fact that he polls well on a couple of sub-topics
> is immaterial.
presidential. I still believe in his agenda, as does the majority of
Americans, away from the "Coastal Elites."
Alan Baker
Apr 24, 2017, 12:46:25 PM4/24/17
to
>
>>> 2. There is no place for Trump to go except up...and the opportunities
>>> abound, with the economic numbers, the view of the polled majority that
>>> he is a strong leader, and an agenda most Americans can agree with. Now
>>> if only the Republicans can unify and Trump not get in the way.
>>
>> No, he can go further down. The view of the polled majority is that he
>> sucks as president. The fact that he polls well on a couple of sub-topics
>> is immaterial.
>
> True...it could get worse but there are signs he's becoming more
> presidential. I still believe in his agenda, as does the majority of
> Americans, away from the "Coastal Elites."
But bravo for finally being able to admit that Trump's approval rating
is below 50%
:-)
John B.
Apr 24, 2017, 2:40:00 PM4/24/17
to
have a 37% approval rating. He wouldn't be the most unpopular
president at the end of 100 days in modern history.
-hh
Apr 24, 2017, 3:42:14 PM4/24/17
to
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:31:57 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:26:59 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > On 4/23/2017 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:54:57 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > >> President Trump at 100 Days: No honeymoon, but no regrets (POLL)
> > >> By GARY LANGER
> > >>
> > >> There's no honeymoon for Donald Trump....
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:26:59 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > On 4/23/2017 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:54:57 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > >> President Trump at 100 Days: No honeymoon, but no regrets (POLL)
> > >> By GARY LANGER
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >
> > > What is it in here that you see as favorable to Trump?
> > >
> > Couple of things, on my first post using Thunderbird and
> > eternalseptember.org (thank Carbs)
> >
> > 1. The Democrats are not gaining ground. The popular
> > vote would go to Trump if the election were repeated.
>
> If frogs had wings, they could fly.
The way that the survey was done has some major problems
> > > What is it in here that you see as favorable to Trump?
> > >
> > Couple of things, on my first post using Thunderbird and
> > eternalseptember.org (thank Carbs)
> >
> > 1. The Democrats are not gaining ground. The popular
> > vote would go to Trump if the election were repeated.
>
> If frogs had wings, they could fly.
with the claims it makes. For example, it excludes the
possibility of increased voter participation/turnout.
Given how low US popular turnout has been, this factor
alone can readily swamp these notional "do-over" votes.
> > 2. There is no place for Trump to go except up...and
>
> No, he can go further down. The view of the polled majority
> is that he sucks as president. The fact that he polls well
> on a couple of sub-topics is immaterial.
And similarly, if the economy slips, his constituency is
> No, he can go further down. The view of the polled majority
> is that he sucks as president. The fact that he polls well
> on a couple of sub-topics is immaterial.
going to turn on him.
Prognostications are always mixed, but there are some who
are pointing to alleged "recession warning" indicators:
<http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/theres-more-than-60-chance-of-a-global-recession-within-the-next-18-months-economist-says.html>
<https://seekingalpha.com/article/4063114-yield-curve-flattens-trump-recession-looming>
Similarly, I noted fairly recently about how the Market
seems to have peaked in early March and is sliding.
And the traditional "brick 'n mortar" of retail space is
still shedding jobs at a high rate:
<http://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/04/yuge-job-losses-trump-ignoring-retail-workers/>
Overall, the effects of Amazon and Walmart still have not
really sorted out their disruptions of the traditional
home town retail industry -- personally, what I suspect
is going to occur is that we'll continue to have the low
end of retail (Walmart, big box stores) and the high end
too (because less price sensitivity & greater desire for
hands-on and quality), which will result in a hollowing-out
of the middle range.
-hh
Alan Baker
Apr 24, 2017, 3:43:39 PM4/24/17
to
On 2017-04-24 12:42 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:31:57 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:26:59 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2017 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:54:57 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>>>> President Trump at 100 Days: No honeymoon, but no regrets (POLL)
>>>>> By GARY LANGER
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no honeymoon for Donald Trump....
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> What is it in here that you see as favorable to Trump?
>>>>
>>> Couple of things, on my first post using Thunderbird and
>>> eternalseptember.org (thank Carbs)
>>>
>>> 1. The Democrats are not gaining ground. The popular
>>> vote would go to Trump if the election were repeated.
>>
>> If frogs had wings, they could fly.
>
> The way that the survey was done has some major problems
> with the claims it makes. For example, it excludes the
> possibility of increased voter participation/turnout.
> Given how low US popular turnout has been, this factor
> alone can readily swamp these notional "do-over" votes.
And it ignores the fact that the very question it asks doesn't really
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:31:57 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:26:59 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2017 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:54:57 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>>>> President Trump at 100 Days: No honeymoon, but no regrets (POLL)
>>>>> By GARY LANGER
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no honeymoon for Donald Trump....
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> What is it in here that you see as favorable to Trump?
>>>>
>>> Couple of things, on my first post using Thunderbird and
>>> eternalseptember.org (thank Carbs)
>>>
>>> 1. The Democrats are not gaining ground. The popular
>>> vote would go to Trump if the election were repeated.
>>
>> If frogs had wings, they could fly.
>
> The way that the survey was done has some major problems
> with the claims it makes. For example, it excludes the
> possibility of increased voter participation/turnout.
> Given how low US popular turnout has been, this factor
> alone can readily swamp these notional "do-over" votes.
show who would win an election took place with a different Democrat
running, as would almost certainly be the case.
<snip>
Carbon
Apr 24, 2017, 8:22:10 PM4/24/17
to
Dene
Apr 25, 2017, 12:56:33 AM4/25/17
to
- show quoted text -
If a majority of Americans believed in his agenda, he wouldn't
have a 37% approval rating. He wouldn't be the most unpopular
president at the end of 100 days in modern history.
I think Independents have a problem with his demeanor and presentation, especially Twitter. Also your liberal media is relentlessly negative. It factors into the equation.
have a 37% approval rating. He wouldn't be the most unpopular
president at the end of 100 days in modern history.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2017, 1:14:43 AM4/25/17
to
...and dwindle...
...and dwindle.
People have a problem with his obvious, utter incompetence, Greg.
John B.
Apr 25, 2017, 8:47:46 AM4/25/17
to
the equation as well?
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 25, 2017, 11:00:29 AM4/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:10:46 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>No. The network media runs 89% negative stories about Trump.
LOL. Apparently a provable percentage from an unbiased media outlet.
Breitbart?
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
LOL. Apparently a provable percentage from an unbiased media outlet.
Breitbart?
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2017, 12:42:05 PM4/25/17
to
> No. The network media runs 89% negative stories about Trump.
>
Which of them is untrue?
>
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 25, 2017, 1:43:05 PM4/25/17
to
"exposing and combating liberal media bias" did a poll of 1,300
(probably their readers) to arrive at this number.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2017, 2:16:36 PM4/25/17
to
On 2017-04-25 11:08 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
> The Muslim ban,
How are the stories about that untrue?
> the Russian hack obviously.
Again: make specific statements about them...
...or is that too much for you?
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
How are the stories about that untrue?
> the Russian hack obviously.
Again: make specific statements about them...
...or is that too much for you?
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 25, 2017, 2:38:23 PM4/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:09:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>Cite.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/04/18/honeymoon-hell-liberal-media-vs-president-trump
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/04/18/honeymoon-hell-liberal-media-vs-president-trump
Dene
Apr 25, 2017, 2:44:33 PM4/25/17
to
on which show you watch. Their regular news reports are down the
middle. That is in contrast to CNN and MSNBC, and often the network
news and Sunday shows. The latter surprises me at times. George
Stephanopolus plays it down the middle, as does Chris Wallace.
John B.
Apr 25, 2017, 3:52:51 PM4/25/17
to
attempted Muslim ban and the Russian hacking were
untrue is mind-boggling to me.
John B.
Apr 25, 2017, 4:00:59 PM4/25/17
to
Or maybe you think non-TV outlets aren't relevant. There are
conservative newspapers, conservative radio talk show hosts,
conservative websites. Lots of people, including the president
of the United States, turn to these sources for "news."
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 25, 2017, 4:42:41 PM4/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:30:43 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
> people was used?
>
>Are you lying again Booby?
It was in that article I think.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:09:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> <nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>>>>
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:09:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> <nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>> Not relevant. MRC Newsbusters, a far-right web site with the motto
>>>> "exposing and combating liberal media bias" did a poll of 1,300
>>>> (probably their readers) to arrive at this number.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Cite.
>>
>> http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/04/18/honeymoon-hell-liberal-media-vs-president-trump
>>
>
>Where is the cite that supports your claim that a poll of 1300
>>>> "exposing and combating liberal media bias" did a poll of 1,300
>>>> (probably their readers) to arrive at this number.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Cite.
>>
>> http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/04/18/honeymoon-hell-liberal-media-vs-president-trump
>>
>
> people was used?
>
>Are you lying again Booby?
It was in that article I think.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 25, 2017, 4:45:37 PM4/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:00:07 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>> How on earth anyone can say that stories about the
>> attempted Muslim ban and the Russian hacking were
>> untrue is mind-boggling to me.
>>
>
>A. There was no Muslim Ban.
>> attempted Muslim ban and the Russian hacking were
>> untrue is mind-boggling to me.
>>
>
>B. There was no Russian hack of the election.
Unreal. Both of those statements are false to the max.
Are you on drugs? Not illegal, but prescriptive.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 25, 2017, 5:09:39 PM4/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:58:53 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>Think again.
I just re-read it and it's not in that article. I googled "media 89%
negative" and got over 5 pages of sites that covered it. Almost all
were small far-right web sites and referenced Newsbusters. After
looking through several went there..
I don't know where I saw it, but what does it matter? The Newsbuster's
article was explicit in their findings, of which I believe.
I also believe that the Trump administration deserved all negatives
except for his SCOTUS appointment.
I just re-read it and it's not in that article. I googled "media 89%
negative" and got over 5 pages of sites that covered it. Almost all
were small far-right web sites and referenced Newsbusters. After
looking through several went there..
I don't know where I saw it, but what does it matter? The Newsbuster's
article was explicit in their findings, of which I believe.
I also believe that the Trump administration deserved all negatives
except for his SCOTUS appointment.
Dene
Apr 25, 2017, 5:17:33 PM4/25/17
to
Dene
Apr 25, 2017, 5:34:02 PM4/25/17
to
Trump sponsored actions...
1. The recent tariff against Canada for lumber and other trade imbalances.
2. His efforts to strengthen existing immigration law, including
sanctuary cities.
3. His efforts to reform healthcare vs. letting O'Care die on it's own
(trust me...it's dying).
4. The travel ban. Curious what you want in it's place or is the
European open border solution is acceptable to you?
5. Keystone Pipeline
6. XO to hire and buy American
7. Syrian missile strike
8. Pressure on NK and China. What would you do differently?
9. Reduction of annual mortgage insurance premiums
10. MOAB bombing and continuous warfare against ISIS
11. Strengthening ICE and Border Patrol ranks
12. His Cabinet postings
13. His effort, which will be announced tomorrow, for tax reform. Are
you against a corporate tax reduction to 15-20%
Heard Elizabeth Warren on CNN last night (ruined my dinner appetite).
She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
MNMikeW
Apr 25, 2017, 5:48:59 PM4/25/17
to
Dene wrote:
>
> So...to summarize, Trump deserves the negatives toward the following
> Trump sponsored actions...
>
> 1. The recent tariff against Canada for lumber and other trade imbalances.
>
> 2. His efforts to strengthen existing immigration law, including
> sanctuary cities.
>
> 3. His efforts to reform healthcare vs. letting O'Care die on it's own
> (trust me...it's dying).
>
> 4. The travel ban. Curious what you want in it's place or is the
> European open border solution is acceptable to you?
>
> 5. Keystone Pipeline
>
> 6. XO to hire and buy American
>
> 7. Syrian missile strike
>
> 8. Pressure on NK and China. What would you do differently?
>
> 9. Reduction of annual mortgage insurance premiums
>
> 10. MOAB bombing and continuous warfare against ISIS
>
> 11. Strengthening ICE and Border Patrol ranks
>
> 12. His Cabinet postings
>
> 13. His effort, which will be announced tomorrow, for tax reform. Are
> you against a corporate tax reduction to 15-20%
>
> Heard Elizabeth Warren on CNN last night (ruined my dinner appetite).
> She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and the leftist horde would still bitch
>
> So...to summarize, Trump deserves the negatives toward the following
> Trump sponsored actions...
>
> 1. The recent tariff against Canada for lumber and other trade imbalances.
>
> 2. His efforts to strengthen existing immigration law, including
> sanctuary cities.
>
> 3. His efforts to reform healthcare vs. letting O'Care die on it's own
> (trust me...it's dying).
>
> 4. The travel ban. Curious what you want in it's place or is the
> European open border solution is acceptable to you?
>
> 5. Keystone Pipeline
>
> 6. XO to hire and buy American
>
> 7. Syrian missile strike
>
> 8. Pressure on NK and China. What would you do differently?
>
> 9. Reduction of annual mortgage insurance premiums
>
> 10. MOAB bombing and continuous warfare against ISIS
>
> 11. Strengthening ICE and Border Patrol ranks
>
> 12. His Cabinet postings
>
> 13. His effort, which will be announced tomorrow, for tax reform. Are
> you against a corporate tax reduction to 15-20%
>
> Heard Elizabeth Warren on CNN last night (ruined my dinner appetite).
> She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
about it.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 25, 2017, 6:10:57 PM4/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:48:57 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and the leftist horde would still bitch
>about it.
He's as qualified to do that as being POTUS.
>
>
>Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and the leftist horde would still bitch
>about it.
Dene
Apr 25, 2017, 6:12:10 PM4/25/17
to
Carbon
Apr 25, 2017, 9:25:59 PM4/25/17
to
On 04/25/2017 05:48 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and the leftist horde would still bitch
> about it.
Trump could be a total fucking moron and you propaganda victims would
> Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and the leftist horde would still bitch
> about it.
still support him.
John B.
Apr 25, 2017, 9:36:33 PM4/25/17
to
John B.
Apr 25, 2017, 10:11:31 PM4/25/17
to
> 2. His efforts to strengthen existing immigration law, including
> sanctuary cities.
Bad. He has made no effort to strengthen immigration law. A federal
> sanctuary cities.
judge struck down his withholding of funding for sanctuary cities, as
well he should have. The funding to be withheld had nothing to do
with immigration.
3. His efforts to reform healthcare vs. letting O'Care die on it's own
> (trust me...it's dying).
He has so far failed at this.
> (trust me...it's dying).
> 4. The travel ban. Curious what you want in it's place or is the
> European open border solution is acceptable to you?
Struck down by two fed. judges as blatant discrimination. No person
> European open border solution is acceptable to you?
from any of the banned countries ever committed a terrorist act
in the U.S.
> 5. Keystone Pipeline
Great if you're a climate change denier.
> 6. XO to hire and buy American
Will drive up costs to the federal govt.
> 7. Syrian missile strike
What good did it do? What is Trump's Syria policy?
> 8. Pressure on NK and China. What would you do differently?
I wouldn't tell Xi that I won't call China a currency manipulator
if he helped me out with NK, because China is not a currency
manipulator.
> 9. Reduction of annual mortgage insurance premiums
>
> 10. MOAB bombing and continuous warfare against ISIS
Nothing more than what Obama did and got no credit for from
>
> 10. MOAB bombing and continuous warfare against ISIS
the likes of you.
> 11. Strengthening ICE and Border Patrol ranks
He has not done this.
> 12. His Cabinet postings
Are you fucking kidding? Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson,
Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt -- these people are either
radical conservatives or incompetent or both.
> 13. His effort, which will be announced tomorrow, for tax reform. Are
> you against a corporate tax reduction to 15-20%
I'm against personal income tax reform that cuts taxes for the rich,
> you against a corporate tax reduction to 15-20%
but nor for anyone else. I'm against the border tax.
> Heard Elizabeth Warren on CNN last night (ruined my dinner appetite).
> She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
Yes, but only because there isn't a worse grade to give him.
> She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
John B.
Apr 25, 2017, 10:12:35 PM4/25/17
to
Carbon
Apr 25, 2017, 10:45:18 PM4/25/17
to
On 04/25/2017 05:33 PM, Dene wrote:
> Heard Elizabeth Warren on CNN last night (ruined my dinner appetite).
> She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
Of course. Trump's stupidity has been on public display since the 80's
> Heard Elizabeth Warren on CNN last night (ruined my dinner appetite).
> She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
when he elbowed his way into the national spotlight. If watching him
struggling to form sentences isn't evidence enough, then I recommend any
of the articles by Tony Schwartz, the actual author of Trump's "The Art of
the Deal," that touches on the problems getting that book out the door.
According to Schwartz and all available evidence, Trump is largely
incapable of abstract thought. What you see now, the fascination with
celebrity, wealth, titties, etc., is all there is to Trump. He is a
shallow, ignorant, incurious fellow, especially compared to his immediate
predecessor. This is the truth. Deal with it.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2017, 11:04:46 PM4/25/17
to
>> How on earth anyone can say that stories about the
>> attempted Muslim ban and the Russian hacking were
>> untrue is mind-boggling to me.
>>
>
>> attempted Muslim ban and the Russian hacking were
>> untrue is mind-boggling to me.
>>
>
> A. There was no Muslim Ban.
Yeah... ...there really was. Or there would have been if the courts
haven't shut it down... ...both times.
> B. There was no Russian hack of the election.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2017, 11:39:31 PM4/25/17
to
Because he IS a total fucking moron!
:-)
Dene
Apr 26, 2017, 12:21:41 AM4/26/17
to
in contrast to the window dressing of the last six years. Deal with it :)
Dene
Apr 26, 2017, 12:22:45 AM4/26/17
to
-hh
Apr 26, 2017, 7:14:56 AM4/26/17
to
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:11:31 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > ...
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > So...to summarize, Trump deserves the negatives toward the following
> > Trump sponsored actions...
> >
> > 1. The recent tariff against Canada for lumber and other trade imbalances.
<
> Bad. Will raise costs for home-builders and home-buyers. Should have been
> dealt with in NAFTA renegotiation.
This one is problematic because it can very well backfire. The rates
> > Trump sponsored actions...
> >
> > 1. The recent tariff against Canada for lumber and other trade imbalances.
<
> Bad. Will raise costs for home-builders and home-buyers. Should have been
> dealt with in NAFTA renegotiation.
that the USA currently charges American Enterprise for use of public lands
have been known to be well below "Market Reference Range" for decades,
despite the likes of cattle ranchers like Bundy complaining that they're too
expensive. Deliberately allowing these 'give away' rates to continue is a
form of Government subsidies to these industries, which means that from
an export perspective, other countries could rightfully raise their tariffs.
> > 2. His efforts to strengthen existing immigration law, including
> > sanctuary cities.
>
> Bad. He has made no effort to strengthen immigration law. A federal
> judge struck down his withholding of funding for sanctuary cities, as
> well he should have. The funding to be withheld had nothing to do
> with immigration.
local LEO's to take extra steps - - that means that it has the markings
of an **Unfunded Mandate**.
> 3. His efforts to reform healthcare vs. letting O'Care die on it's own
> > (trust me...it's dying).
>
> He has so far failed at this.
the only way that healthcare costs will go down is for someone in the
business to get paid less - - so whose ox is to get gored? The most
obvious ones are the ones making the highest profits, which is why the
industry is overripe for disruption.
> > 4. The travel ban. Curious what you want in it's place or is the
> > European open border solution is acceptable to you?
>
> Struck down by two fed. judges as blatant discrimination. No person
> from any of the banned countries ever committed a terrorist act
> in the U.S.
Constitutional principles. Overall, the whole 'extreme vetting' is just as
bad of a Red Herring distraction as the wall.
> > 5. Keystone Pipeline
>
> Great if you're a climate change denier.
outside of our purview, which is the environmental risk(s) in Canada. The
second one is that a pipeline would displace use of rail, which has been
having recurring derailments & fires. Third one is that money going to
the railroads should theoretically help fund their infrastructure to minimize
future accidents. Fourth one is that the pipeline routing was done very
poorly in terms of respecting the ownership rights of others. Fifth one is
the joke about mandating 'American Steel' after 99.9% of the materials
had already been purchased & shipped.
> > 6. XO to hire and buy American
>
> Will drive up costs to the federal govt.
for decades - - I fail to see just what has actually changed in any way.
> > 7. Syrian missile strike
>
> What good did it do? What is Trump's Syria policy?
> > 8. Pressure on NK and China. What would you do differently?
>
> I wouldn't tell Xi that I won't call China a currency manipulator
> if he helped me out with NK, because China is not a currency
> manipulator.
your own.
> > 9. Reduction of annual mortgage insurance premiums
> > 10. MOAB bombing and continuous warfare against ISIS
>
> Nothing more than what Obama did and got no credit for from
> the likes of you.
administration and was simply waiting for the right target to
present itself to have the opportunity. Didn't require an
Executive authority to use, so neither POTUS would have
been in the decision loop ... thus neither would merit credit.
> > 11. Strengthening ICE and Border Patrol ranks
>
> He has not done this.
expressing his frustration because both Obama and Bush Jr did
the same "strengthening" thing and it made no real difference.
His basic message was 'how many times do we have to repeat...?'
> > 12. His Cabinet postings
>
> Are you fucking kidding? Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson,
> Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt -- these people are either
> radical conservatives or incompetent or both.
> > 13. His effort, which will be announced tomorrow, for tax reform.
> > Are you against a corporate tax reduction to 15-20%
>
> I'm against personal income tax reform that cuts taxes for the rich,
> but nor for anyone else. I'm against the border tax.
And what **has** happened from the last Income tax simplification
legislation (Reagan) was that the rates were dropped & loopholes killed,
but in the 30 years since, new loopholes have crept back in, and since
the rates are lower, we're now worse off than we were before because
that reform. Unless the plan has a way to positively keep new loopholes
out forever, it isn't a good plan. And if it eliminates the AMT, it is most
definitely a horrible plan.
> > Heard Elizabeth Warren on CNN last night (ruined my dinner appetite).
> > She says Trump deserves an "F" for all he has done. You agree?
>
> Yes, but only because there isn't a worse grade to give him.
much of may only be fleeting from a diplomatic standpoint if there's
suitable corrections taken. So far, there's not been too much actual
permanent damage done yet. So while I'd give them an "F" for intent,
in actual execution, they don't get that bad of a grade; probably a "D".
-hh
Carbon
Apr 26, 2017, 7:16:29 AM4/26/17
to
the job and isn't smart enough to learn. You can disagree all you want. It
doesn't change the reality.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 11:36:23 AM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 05:14:21 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>It could not be more evident that telling the truth does not
> matter to you.
>
>You love to lie.
Silliness.
> matter to you.
>
>You love to lie.
Silliness.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 11:39:15 AM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 05:26:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
> convinced of two issues that never occurred.
You're the ovine one here. Where on earth did you get this?
We know that if you have a cite it will be from a wacky source.
Carbon
Apr 26, 2017, 12:06:50 PM4/26/17
to
far-right propaganda the less able have become. They have no conception of
the scientific method, so literally everything devolves into a giant he
said/she said pile of shit. Now due to Russian interference they've help
elect a genuine weakling as president and they don't even know it.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2017, 12:56:55 PM4/26/17
to
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2017, 12:57:45 PM4/26/17
to
> We can see how effective negative media is. You sheep are
> convinced of two issues that never occurred.
>
You appear to be convinced of things that aren't so, doofus.
> convinced of two issues that never occurred.
>
The FBI is ON RECORD as stating Russia acted to influence your election.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 1:58:19 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:51:45 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>Here is the wackiest source I could find.
>
>http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/23/1603526/-The-election-wasn-
>t-hacked-538-runs-the-numbers
The wackiest... and wrong.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>
>http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/23/1603526/-The-election-wasn-
>t-hacked-538-runs-the-numbers
The wackiest... and wrong.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 2:06:49 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:57:29 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>Another wacky source.
>http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-tru
>mps-executive-order-muslim-ban/
Not a wacky source.
It says that Trump called it a Muslim ban, and realizing that didn't
fly changed it.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-tru
>mps-executive-order-muslim-ban/
Not a wacky source.
It says that Trump called it a Muslim ban, and realizing that didn't
fly changed it.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2017, 5:59:11 PM4/26/17
to
> election was hacked.
>
In the broad sense, that's what the FBI said happened.
Were voting machines actually tampered with? Not that I've heard anyone
claim.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 6:16:02 PM4/26/17
to
>I didn't say there was no influence, the media claimed the
> election was hacked.
Damn you're dense. The election WAS hacked, but not altered. Hacking
> election was hacked.
is the act, not the result.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 6:24:20 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:20:16 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>Bwaahaahaa. Your double speak and stupidity is getting worse by
> the day.
LOL. This from a turd that doesn't know that your computer can be
hacked but not affected.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
> the day.
LOL. This from a turd that doesn't know that your computer can be
hacked but not affected.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 6:26:49 PM4/26/17
to
> the same.
You say that as if it was a bad thing. Alan is a lot smarter than
you, but you don't know it. Everyone here is smarter than you.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2017, 8:49:54 PM4/26/17
to
On 2017-04-26 3:26 PM, Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:22:07 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:22:07 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>>>>>>>> A. There was no Muslim Ban.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah... ...there really was. Or there would have been if the courts
>>>>>>> haven't shut it down... ...both times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> B. There was no Russian hack of the election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FBI disagrees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can see how effective negative media is. You sheep are
>>>>>> convinced of two issues that never occurred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You appear to be convinced of things that aren't so, doofus.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FBI is ON RECORD as stating Russia acted to influence your election.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say there was no influence, the media claimed the
>>>> election was hacked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the broad sense, that's what the FBI said happened.
>>>
>>> Were voting machines actually tampered with? Not that I've heard anyone
>>> claim.
>>>
>>
>> In a very broad sense so as not to be true. You andBK are two in
>> the same.
>
> You say that as if it was a bad thing. Alan is a lot smarter than
> you, but you don't know it. Everyone here is smarter than you.
>
Please. Saying I'm "a lot smarter" than doofus is damning with the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah... ...there really was. Or there would have been if the courts
>>>>>>> haven't shut it down... ...both times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> B. There was no Russian hack of the election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FBI disagrees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can see how effective negative media is. You sheep are
>>>>>> convinced of two issues that never occurred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You appear to be convinced of things that aren't so, doofus.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FBI is ON RECORD as stating Russia acted to influence your election.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say there was no influence, the media claimed the
>>>> election was hacked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the broad sense, that's what the FBI said happened.
>>>
>>> Were voting machines actually tampered with? Not that I've heard anyone
>>> claim.
>>>
>>
>> In a very broad sense so as not to be true. You andBK are two in
>> the same.
>
> You say that as if it was a bad thing. Alan is a lot smarter than
> you, but you don't know it. Everyone here is smarter than you.
>
faintest of praise.
:-)
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 26, 2017, 9:01:05 PM4/26/17
to
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:49:51 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
That depends on one's definition of "a lot".
wrote:
Dene
Apr 26, 2017, 9:50:14 PM4/26/17
to
DNC was hacked...due to poor security measures.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2017, 11:09:58 PM4/26/17
to
On 2017-04-26 6:50 PM, Dene wrote:
Yes or no:
Do you think that Russia attempted to influence the US election?
(Hint: the FBI has stated that they did.)
Carbon
Apr 27, 2017, 7:24:55 AM4/27/17
to
supporters thought it was true. That's right folks: more than half of
those who voted for Trump actually thought a woman in her 70's was running
a child sex slavery ring out of a pizza joint in Washington, D.C.
Now imagine multitudes of similar "controversies" being churned out by an
army of paid trolls, targeting swing states all over the country.
Oh but wait, the Russians didn't hack the election.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 27, 2017, 11:29:51 AM4/27/17
to
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:44:26 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
> for shooting a gun in there. Your attempt to tie this to
> Russians or Trump is laughable.
Laughable is your inability to read, or comprehend. Where did he
mention Trump or the Russians relative to Pizzagate?
>
>I am pretty sure whatever link you provided was less credible than
> Pizzagate. I don't recall seeing it.
Your blindness is partisan.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>> Pizzagate. I posted a link a few days ago saying more than half of Trump
>> supporters thought it was true. That's right folks: more than half of
>> those who voted for Trump actually thought a woman in her 70's was running
>> a child sex slavery ring out of a pizza joint in Washington, D.C.
>>
>> Now imagine multitudes of similar "controversies" being churned out by an
>> army of paid trolls, targeting swing states all over the country.
>>
>> Oh but wait, the Russians didn't hack the election.
>>
>
>Right. I never heard of Pizzagate until that moron was arrested
>> Pizzagate. I posted a link a few days ago saying more than half of Trump
>> supporters thought it was true. That's right folks: more than half of
>> those who voted for Trump actually thought a woman in her 70's was running
>> a child sex slavery ring out of a pizza joint in Washington, D.C.
>>
>> Now imagine multitudes of similar "controversies" being churned out by an
>> army of paid trolls, targeting swing states all over the country.
>>
>> Oh but wait, the Russians didn't hack the election.
>>
>
> for shooting a gun in there. Your attempt to tie this to
> Russians or Trump is laughable.
Laughable is your inability to read, or comprehend. Where did he
mention Trump or the Russians relative to Pizzagate?
>
>I am pretty sure whatever link you provided was less credible than
> Pizzagate. I don't recall seeing it.
Your blindness is partisan.
Dene
Apr 27, 2017, 11:50:28 AM4/27/17
to
>> Pizzagate. I posted a link a few days ago saying more than half of Trump
>> supporters thought it was true. That's right folks: more than half of
>> those who voted for Trump actually thought a woman in her 70's was running
>> a child sex slavery ring out of a pizza joint in Washington, D.C.
>>
>> Now imagine multitudes of similar "controversies" being churned out by an
>> army of paid trolls, targeting swing states all over the country.
>>
>> Oh but wait, the Russians didn't hack the election.
>>
>
>> supporters thought it was true. That's right folks: more than half of
>> those who voted for Trump actually thought a woman in her 70's was running
>> a child sex slavery ring out of a pizza joint in Washington, D.C.
>>
>> Now imagine multitudes of similar "controversies" being churned out by an
>> army of paid trolls, targeting swing states all over the country.
>>
>> Oh but wait, the Russians didn't hack the election.
>>
>
> Right. I never heard of Pizzagate until that moron was arrested
> for shooting a gun in there. Your attempt to tie this to
> Russians or Trump is laughable.
>
> for shooting a gun in there. Your attempt to tie this to
> Russians or Trump is laughable.
>
> I am pretty sure whatever link you provided was less credible than
> Pizzagate. I don't recall seeing it.
Same here. Carbs...you're grasping at straws with this one.
> Pizzagate. I don't recall seeing it.
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2017, 12:14:49 PM4/27/17
to
rather the ease with which Trump supporters could be made to believe the
worst.
Bob...@onramp.net
Apr 27, 2017, 12:17:22 PM4/27/17
to
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:14:44 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
True. That was plainly said in the OP.
wrote:
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2017, 12:19:54 PM4/27/17
to
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2017, 8:13:47 PM4/27/17
to
> supporters believed
> in Pizzagate.
And he mispoke about the "more" part. It was "almost half", and the
actual figure was 46%, and the polling was done by The Economist and YouGov:
<https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/>
>
> This claim like all of his claims was absurd. Why he tried to tie
> it to Russia was even more bizarre.
>
He didn't. He showed it as an example of how gullible and easily led
Trump supporters are.
> The boy is a welching fool.
>
Carbon
Apr 27, 2017, 10:25:52 PM4/27/17
to
On 04/27/2017 08:13 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-04-27 3:15 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2017-04-27 8:50 AM, Dene wrote:
>>>
>>>> Same here. Carbs...you're grasping at straws with this one.
>>>
>>> His point is not that the Russians created that particular canard, but
>>> rather the ease with which Trump supporters could be made to believe
>>> the worst.
>>
>> His claim was that more than half of all Trump supporters believed in
>> Pizzagate.
>
> And he mispoke about the "more" part. It was "almost half", and the
> actual figure was 46%, and the polling was done by The Economist and
> YouGov:
>
> <https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/>
You know, you're right. It was only 46%. I think it was the fake Bowling
> On 2017-04-27 3:15 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2017-04-27 8:50 AM, Dene wrote:
>>>
>>>> Same here. Carbs...you're grasping at straws with this one.
>>>
>>> His point is not that the Russians created that particular canard, but
>>> rather the ease with which Trump supporters could be made to believe
>>> the worst.
>>
>> His claim was that more than half of all Trump supporters believed in
>> Pizzagate.
>
> And he mispoke about the "more" part. It was "almost half", and the
> actual figure was 46%, and the polling was done by The Economist and
> YouGov:
>
> <https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/>
Green Massacre that got over 50%. My bad.
>> This claim like all of his claims was absurd. Why he tried to tie it
>> to Russia was even more bizarre.
Alan Baker
Apr 28, 2017, 2:53:44 AM4/28/17
to
>>>> His point is not that the Russians created that particular canard, but
>>>> rather the ease with which Trump supporters could be made to believe the
>>>> worst.
>>>>
>>>
>>> His claim was that more than half of all Trump
>>> supporters believed
>>> in Pizzagate.
>>
>> And he mispoke about the "more" part. It was "almost half", and the
>> actual figure was 46%, and the polling was done by The Economist and YouGov:
>>
>> <https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This claim like all of his claims was absurd. Why he tried to tie
>>> it to Russia was even more bizarre.
>>>
>>
>> He didn't. He showed it as an example of how gullible and easily led
>> Trump supporters are.
>>
>>> The boy is a welching fool.
>>>
>
> What poll? Your cite lists a chart with no indication how it was
>>>> rather the ease with which Trump supporters could be made to believe the
>>>> worst.
>>>>
>>>
>>> His claim was that more than half of all Trump
>>> supporters believed
>>> in Pizzagate.
>>
>> And he mispoke about the "more" part. It was "almost half", and the
>> actual figure was 46%, and the polling was done by The Economist and YouGov:
>>
>> <https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This claim like all of his claims was absurd. Why he tried to tie
>>> it to Russia was even more bizarre.
>>>
>>
>> He didn't. He showed it as an example of how gullible and easily led
>> Trump supporters are.
>>
>>> The boy is a welching fool.
>>>
>
> contrived.
>
<https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ljv2ohxmzj/econTabReport.pdf>
0 new messages