One year since Trump's election

[JoleneBrody]

Why?

Because Obama didn't do squat it's a biased survey?

I’m going to guess it has something to do with the part of her post you chose not to quote for some reason.
It doesn’t even give you the option to rate Trump as “poor” unlike the answers offered for Obama. Not like it’s a real survey anyway


This survey made me start singing the “safe space” song from South Park.
Bully proof windowsssss

 

[Just_A_Guy]

In Europe we have read this pool/survey:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mp-again-as-most-admired-american-man-in-poll

 

[AudriTwo]

if you notice. poor is not an option for trump. the only options under trump are great, good, okay, other. where as obama has great, good, okay, poor, other. that is clearly a bias survey.


also ignoring obama's accomplishments is like ignoring trumps. it's disingenuous and ignorant.

 

[AmberCutie]

Why?

Because Obama didn't do squat it's a biased survey?

Did you not notice that there were only positive options for Trump, while there was a negative option for Obama?

 

[n_i_c_u]

I thought it was a humorous poll to make a political joke at first, but, I'm not seeing anything on the interwebs to make that case. I guess if he is trying to reach the people that voted him in to office and how they feel about him compared to Obama, the best way to do that would not have a "poor" rating as it would be flooded with that option by so many activist groups (it does ask for names and stuff, but, I am sure it isn't fact checked and this seems to be a public poll and the numbers would be severely skewed by any kind of tech savvy crowd) and more than half of those that voted in the last election. Just my opinion, as I am trying to figure out why the option was left off or why there might even be a poll.

 

[AmberCutie]

I thought it was a humorous poll to make a political joke at first, but, I'm not seeing anything on the interwebs to make that case. I guess if he is trying to reach the people that voted him in to office and how they feel about him compared to Obama, the best way to do that would not have a "poor" rating as it would be flooded with that option by so many activist groups (it does ask for names and stuff, but, I am sure it isn't fact checked and this seems to be a public poll and the numbers would be severely skewed by any kind of tech savvy crowd) and more than half of those that voted in the last election. Just my opinion, as I am trying to figure out why the option was left off or why there might even be a poll.

When your approval ratings are so low that you look like the least approved president in history, the only option is to try to skew the numbers by putting out a poll that only has positive options for yourself. Amirite?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

In Europe we have read this pool/survey:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mp-again-as-most-admired-american-man-in-poll

Everyone is saying it!

http://news.gallup.com/poll/224672/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-retain-admired-titles.aspx
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ired-status-annual-gallup-poll-donald-n833006
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/27/barack-obama-donald-trump-most-admired-poll/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...mp-america-admired-man-poll-article-1.3722879
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/ameri...s-most-admired-gallup-poll-of-americans-finds
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-most-admired-gallup-poll-of-americans-finds

Spoiler

Clinton has topped the survey 22 times in total and 16 times running: more than any other woman in US history and nine wins ahead of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Do tell...

 

[n_i_c_u]

When your approval ratings are so low that you look like the least approved president in history, the only option is to try to skew the numbers by putting out a poll that only has positive options for yourself. Amirite?

Well, I guess Trump could use the poll any way he wants and his character seems like he would use the results to say something dumb. So I guess you are right. Not sure how anyone puts any faith in any kind of polls these days after the election night that put him there in the first place (I believed the polls), but, Poll away politicians

 

[AmberCutie]

Well, I guess Trump could use the poll any way he wants and his character seems like he would use the results to say something dumb. So I guess you are right. Not sure how anyone puts any faith in any kind of polls these days after the election night that put him there in the first place (I believed the polls), but, Poll away politicians

A lot of the polls that predicted Clinton to win were actually correct in that they measured popular vote, vs. the crapola Electoral College that juked Trump into office.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Do tell...

What can I say, I might agree that Mrs Roosvelt was really in another league. But the pool asked just to name the woman you admire most. It didn't ask "who do you admire the most between Mrs Clinton and Mrs Roosvelt?"

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Forgot to add:

Also, the pool asked about living men/women.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

When your approval ratings are so low that you look like the least approved president in history, the only option is to try to skew the numbers by putting out a poll that only has positive options for yourself. Amirite?

I am not sure you are right. Anything is possible I suppose, but that strikes me as the shallowest possible interpretation.

A big fat fuck you to the corporate media that has weaponized approval ratings?
Mirroring his base, which is clamoring for accountability from Obama and Co.?
These both seem more likely to me.

Not sure how anyone puts any faith in any kind of polls these days after the election night that put him there in the first place (I believed the polls), but, Poll away politicians

No kidding.
I didn't just believe the polls, I generally had more trust in the left-flavored corporate media than the right. An error.

What can I say, I might agree that Mrs Roosvelt was really in another league. But the pool asked just to name the woman you admire the most. It didn't ask "who do you admire the most between Mrs Clinton and Mrs Roosvelt?"

Also, the pool asked about living men/woman.

This is beside the point.

I don't know if Martin Pengelly is trying to raise Hillary up here, drag Eleanor Roosevelt down, or what. Regardless, it seems absurdly out of touch to draw such a comparison considering some of the things that are now coming to light.

Of course, I don't know if those are his actual thoughts, or just the ones his editors will allow him to express.

**********





Tell me more Mr. Callan...are we talking about 'collusion' here? A 'conspiracy'? Sedition? Treason? 'Disturbing' is such a vague word....

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Polls really don't mean much, especially when it's targeted towards specific demographis on their views. Such as targeting a liberal convention for ratings on a Republican. Or, conservatives for views on a liberal hot-topic. But, if you want to believe in polls, here's some headliners that people may have missed:

Donald Trump not popular, but Hillary Clinton is even worse (September 7, 2017)

Hillar Clinton Favorable Rating at New Low (December 19, 2017)

Clinton's numbers dropped below Trumps for much of the summer, and she's at an all-time low as it is for her approval ratings. She's taken a beating on her ratings due to things she's done, and not done, related to how things happened in the election. Trump's numbers dropped because of two major issues: health care reform and the new tax bill. His mouth has an impact. But, nowhere near those two are dinging him at the moment.

What I think is funny is that the two biggest things Trump seems to be taking a hit on, are also the two biggest gripes of most people right now: High taxes and an ever-increasing rate of health care premiums brought on by Obamacare. He's attempting to address them. But, people keep bitching about change. Ironic since Obama's slogan in '08 was about change. Funny how people go back and forth about things...

 

[dilligaf0]

The polls mean nothing. Trump will simply say whatever bullshit he wants his minions to believe and they do.....facts be damned.

 

[Lucid1]

A lot of the polls that predicted Clinton to win were actually correct in that they measured popular vote, vs. the crapola Electoral College that juked Trump into office.

The bias is not limited to polls and occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. A certain segment of the political spectrum is fond of touting that Trump lost the "popular" vote, indicating that Hillary should have won based on that fact alone. Yet, when it comes to putting certain ideals and concepts to a "popular vote", that same segment likes to invoke the "mob rule" mentality rule, that says that a majority should not determine the outcome of issues(based on votes) that impact a certain segment of the population or special interest group(s). Odd, that.

 

[AmberCutie]

The bias is not limited to polls and occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. A certain segment of the political spectrum is fond of touting that Trump lost the "popular" vote, indicating that Hillary should have won based on that fact alone. Yet, when it comes to putting certain ideals and concepts to a "popular vote", that same segment likes to invoke the "mob rule" mentality rule, that says that a majority should not determine the outcome of issues(based on votes) that impact a certain segment of the population or special interest group(s). Odd, that.

Well, you're not wrong....

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know if Martin Pengelly is trying to raise Hillary up here, drag Eleanor Roosevelt down, or what. Regardless, it seems absurdly out of touch to draw such a comparison

I don't think he was trying to draw any sort of comparison but just merely reporting a statistical data. By the way, talking about statistics, if we take a look at the recent pool results, it is much more interesting that the woman the respondents often mention or admire most is a close friend or a relative. Makes more sense.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1678/most-admired-man-woman.aspx

 

[n_i_c_u]

For as much as I am confused about why Trump is polling with no negative option for himself. I can only guess as to why. I did some research and found a guy that worked for the Clintons and his thoughts

Spoiler: the hill article

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...038-why-the-polls-are-wrong-about-trump-again

. The article reads unbiased to me, and he does admit to a close race even though it never read that way to me from the outlets I was glomming.

I do remember Trump claiming, after victory, to have different numbers than the media which I found interesting at the time (I guess he could have been bragging but, who knows, he might have put out some dumb polls)--which makes me wonder about this poll and what he is trying to do. The whole thing is odd to me. It is interesting to read a trump poll, as I don't think I have ever visited that kind of page or would want to under normal circumstances.

God knows if he is using this poll as some sort of factual data for himself to run again in three more years for another four? Make sure you arm yourselves with voter registration cards.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I don't think he was trying to draw any sort of comparison but just merely reporting a statistical data. By the way, talking about statistics, if we take a look at the recent pool results, it is much more interesting that the woman the respondents often mention or admire most is a close friend or a relative. Makes more sense.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1678/most-admired-man-woman.aspx

This is what I see the Guardian saying:

Obama beats Trump again as most admired American man in poll

• This poll is bad news for Trump
• Obama and Hillary still more admired by Americans than Trump
• Mention of the whole "but she won the popular vote" issue, Hillary is the most admired woman in America
• Trump is suffering brutally low approval ratings
• Hillary ahead of Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Elizabeth Warren
• Trump's actions interpreted to be attempts to undo Obama's legacy
• Trump championed the 'birther' movement
• Trump also behind Obama in Time magazine Person of the Year wins, therefore
• The Gallop poll may frustrate Trump
• Clinton has topped the survey more than any other woman (including Eleanor Roosevelt)

In other words, Obama is at 17%, Trump is at 14%, and Hillary is at 9%. Trying to hitch Hillary to Obama didn't work well in the election, and doing it in this article is nothing more than a black mark against the Guardian. From my perspective, it goes a little beyond 'merely reporting statistical data'.

 

[Bocefish]

It doesn’t even give you the option to rate Trump as “poor” unlike the answers offered for Obama. Not like it’s a real survey anyway

Imagine that.

 

[Bocefish]

I did some research and found a guy that worked for the Clintons and his thoughts

Really?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I do remember Trump claiming, after victory, to have different numbers than the media which I found interesting at the time (I guess he could have been bragging but, who knows, he might have put out some dumb polls)--which makes me wonder about this poll and what he is trying to do. The whole thing is odd to me. It is interesting to read a trump poll, as I don't think I have ever visited that kind of page or would want to under normal circumstances.

God knows if he is using this poll as some sort of factual data for himself to run again in three more years for another four? Make sure you arm yourselves with voter registration cards.

The main thing that jumped out at me was the email box. Polls/petitions like that I have signed in the past usually resulted in a deluge of like minded interest groups reaching out to me through email. The poll itself is no sillier than the garbage the CNN/MSNBC/FOX crowd has been peddling.

Working for/against a potential Trump run in 2020, or even looking for some illusory victory in 2018, is beside the point though. There are things going on right now, and channeling one's energies into a far-off ballot box is dereliction of civic duty.

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-is-devolving-into-an-effort-to-stigmatize-dissent/
https://protectdemocracy.org/wp-con...-Amicus-Brief-National-Security-Officials.pdf
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3893506-Invasion-of-Privacy-lawsuit-complaint-Trump.html

An invasion-of-privacy lawsuit, filed in July 2017 by a former DNC official and two Democratic donors, alleges that they suffered “significant distress and anxiety and will require lifelong vigilance and expense” because their personal information was exposed as a result of the e-mail hack of the DNC, which, the suit claims, was part of a conspiracy between Roger Stone and the Trump campaign.

Unfortunately, discussing such things in my local community has led me to the conclusion that most are too ignorant/apathetic/busy to consider what is going on here. Idk, maybe Alex Jones is right about the fluoride in the water.

 

[AudriTwo]

 

[n_i_c_u]

Really?

Yeah, seriously. It was a good article that had no favoritism from what i could tell (the author might actually be trying to be a real journalist or something). Shit, it is hard to get facts these days, but I think that website: the Hill, might actually be more non-partisan than most. I am still trying to figure out where they stand and what the profit is by saying stuff that appeals to neither party. I haven't looked long enough as it is kind of a new site for me. I'm figuring you for a tried-and -true republican so I don't know how such a site would appeal to you. I just need facts, not weirdness.

I guess the whole thing with the poll that audritwo posted is that it is really just a scheme to get donations from people that fill out the info to submit. I guess they get phone calls and text messages. The sleuth in me is now wondering why the Trump and the White House are trying to get donations, so, that is kind of a thing I am thinking about. The only thing I can figure is that it isn't a real poll trying to make sense of reality. It seems to be just a money grab. Disappointing. I can understand certain questions being asked for a reason, but it just being a poll to get cash seems weak. Really a lame attempt at a poll. Here I was thinking it was important for some reason and it isn't (damn I feel stupid reading it and thinking about it).

Not to boce personally: As to one year in to Trump's presidency: Roy Moore didn't get elected and a democrat did. Which is amazing to me seeing as how the election was in Alabama. I know it was close, but, damn that must suck for all the good old boys? I think Trump might have actually helped the American public to get out and vote. Kind of neat to see it happen.

 

[AmberCutie]

View attachment 73920

Oh my fucking god. Where is his brain?????

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I guess the whole thing with the poll that audritwo posted is that it is really just a scheme to get donations from people that fill out the info to submit. I guess they get phone calls and text messages. The sleuth in me is now wondering why the Trump and the White House are trying to get donations, so, that is kind of a thing I am thinking about. The only thing I can figure is that it isn't a real poll trying to make sense of reality. It seems to be just a money grab. Disappointing. I can understand certain questions being asked for a reason, but it just being a poll to get cash seems weak. Really a lame attempt at a poll. Here I was thinking it was important for some reason and it isn't (damn I feel stupid reading it and thinking about it).

Perhaps rather than focusing on Trump, one should be asking why elected officials are doing fundraisers throughout their entire term while in office? Clinton, Obama. Trump, Feinstein, Reed, Bush, et. all did/do it. They all are guilty

If anything, the 2016 election showed that both parties are equally dirty. I used to have hope that people would remember that shit. But, seems it's gone right back to what it was: both sides pointing the finger and accusing the others of doing the exact same bullshit they do themselves.

2020, I'm voting for for a giant space asteroid because there isn't a big enough bottle of bleach to kill the gene pool of the world.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Perhaps rather than focusing on Trump, one should be asking why elected officials are doing fundraisers throughout their entire term while in office? Clinton, Obama. Trump, Feinstein, Reed, Bush, et. all did/do it. They all are guilty
If anything, the 2016 election showed that both parties are equally dirty. I used to have hope that people would remember that shit. But, seems it's gone right back to what it was: both sides pointing the finger and accusing the others of doing the exact same bullshit they do themselves.

You left out McCain. After watching Ashton Kutcher testify to Congress on behalf of that Nazi-supporting ISIS general, I simply can't go without making sure his name is included.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/e...inked-teneo-among-donors-to-mccain-institute/

Have we hit peak absurdity yet? One can only hope. I shudder to think we may not have yet seen the worst.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

View attachment 73920

We have been quite amused by that tweet in Europe, I can tell you that.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Happy New Year, and Happy Day 1 of "National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month" everyone!

Here's to wishing all good fortune in the coming months, regardless of race, religion, sexual identity, or political affiliation. May there be far fewer lies, much less pandering, and a complete absence of Alinsky-inspired sexual assault accusations/elite-funded media-created racial tensions in the coming year!

And ffs, can all the bros out there spare us from any more of the "IT'S HAPPENING!" nonsense? Leave that crap in 2017 where it belongs!

This is truly as dire as it gets for Clinton. We know Trump means business: last fall, in a visit to Miami, Trump denounced both Clintons in no uncertain terms for their unconscionable gutting of Haiti following the 2011 earthquake.

 

[Bocefish]

I haven't looked long enough as it is kind of a new site for me. I'm figuring you for a tried-and -true republican so I don't know how such a site would appeal to you. I just need facts, not weirdness.

FO