America under President Trump

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your response shows your original assertion he claims he as Kenyan is false. Now you follow up with an equally as false claims saying he engage in a conspiracy not to say it but infer it because you claim on have read something that gave you that impression. Come on Y.

He claimed to be Kenyan back in 1991 in certain situations, never said he's still doing it. Y'all need to learn to read, and stop putting words in other people's mouths to make yourself feel smart.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Rue]

On 11/6/2019 at 10:14 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

Never said he wasn't born in Hawaii, I said he promoted himself as Kenyan when it suited his purposes. 

 

Provide the words you keep claiming Obama stated.  See the problem is I am reading what you claim and I am challenging the words you claim he state as not existing.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Provide the words you keep claiming Obama stated. 

I gave you the link, do your own homework. Clearly you are arguing in bad faith with your idiotic strawmen, so don't expect me to do you any favors. You are lucky I even respond to your silliness at all.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I gave you the link, do your own homework. Clearly you are arguing in bad faith with your idiotic strawmen, so don't expect me to do you any favors. You are lucky I even respond to your silliness at all.

You provided no words to assert what you said from the link you provided. Either put up the words or move on. Calling me slly will not dettract from your unsbstantiated inferences or initial false misrepresentation.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Rue said:

You provided no words to assert what you said from the link you provided. Either put up the words or move on. Calling me slly will not dettract from your unsbstantiated inferences or initial false misrepresentation.

Quote

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. 

Those were the words printed in the 1991 promotional booklet, easily readable from the link provided. If you move the goalposts, or parade any more fallacies in this argument in bad faith, you will receive no further responses.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Those were the words printed in the 1991 promotional booklet, easily readable from the link provided. If you move the goalposts, or parade any more fallacies in this argument in bad faith, you will receive no further responses.

Those were the words, yes.  But who wrote them?  Please read.  

[Boges]

 

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Kentucky isn't a swing state. Trump doesn't need Virginia either.

Seems to don't recognize that as Red states turn purple, the demographic changes make it even tougher for the GOP to eek out wins in places that aren't as friendly. 

What this L shows is that this Trump "Touch" doesn't always work. He campaigned hard and got beat in one of the most Red states in the Union. 

Most Swing State polls have any of the Top 3 Dem Candidates ahead. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Michigan.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Pennsylvania.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Ohio.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Wisconsin.html

Those are the state that the Dems took for granted and wont again. 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

Those were the words, yes.  But who wrote them? 

Not relevant to the point being made.

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

Seems to don't recognize that as Red states turn purple, the demographic changes make it even tougher for the GOP to eek out wins in places that aren't as friendly. 

What this L shows is that this Trump "Touch" doesn't always work. He campaigned hard and got beat in one of the most Red states in the Union. 

Most Swing State polls have any of the Top 3 Dem Candidates ahead. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Michigan.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Pennsylvania.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Ohio.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Wisconsin.html

Those are the state that the Dems took for granted and wont again. 

The Dems are already are taking the Rust Belt for granted, and show no signs whatsoever of changing course. Their numbers aren't good enough to win, they need to be higher at this point and the trend is downward. Once a nominee is picked Trump can focus fire on them and their numbers will continue to fall. Warren is already behind in every key swing state, Sanders splits the key swing states with Trump, and Biden is barely ahead in most of them. That's not good for Democrats, the NY Times isn't exactly a pro-Trump outlet. Not to mention impeachment isn't very popular in key swing states, so the more the Dems push it, the worse their numbers in the swing states will get.

Kentucky isn't turning purple they just had the most unpopular governor in the nation and still nearly won. Your entire interpretation is wishful thinking.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Dems are already are taking the Rust Belt for granted, and show no signs whatsoever of changing course.

Cite

Quote

Their numbers aren't good enough to win, they need to be higher at this point and the trend is downward. Once a nominee is picked Trump can focus fire on them and their numbers will continue to fall. Warren is already behind in every key swing state, Sanders splits the key swing states with Trump, and Biden is barely ahead in most of them. That's not good for Democrats, the NY Times isn't exactly a pro-Trump outlet.

When you can win by .4%. Which is all Trump won by in these states. It sure is.

Polls only matter when the favour Trump, otherwise they're Fake news. 

I think your parroting the Trump tactic of showing unwarranted arrogance and them claiming pwnage when someone calls you on your shit. DERANGEMENT!!! 

Your new strawman is "bad faith" debating. Whatever the Eff that means. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Cite

When you can win by .4%. Which is all Trump won by in these states. It sure is.

Polls only matter when the favour Trump, otherwise they're Fake news. 

I think your parroting the Trump tactic of showing unwarranted arrogance and them claiming pwnage when someone calls you on your shit. DERANGEMENT!!! 

Your new strawman is "bad faith" debating. Whatever the Eff that means. 

The polls have proven to be historically biased against Trump, by about 3 points. So you have spot Trump at least a couple points, especially when the election is so far away and the actual result is too far away to keep them honest. Like I said, the New York TImes is very anti-Trump, and they show him at least close with all the top Democrats in all the key swing states or winning already, and those numbers are only going to go down the more time Trump has to focus fire on them, see Hillary Clinton.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The polls have proven to be historically biased against Trump, by about 3 points. So you have spot Trump at least a couple points, especially when the election is so far away and the actual result is too far away to keep them honest. Like I said, the New York TImes is very anti-Trump, and they show him at least close with all the top Democrats in all the key swing states or winning already.

Cite. 

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Cite. 

Go look at the most recent polls in all the swing states on the RCP average, look for the results of the NYTimes/Sienna poll, which is at the top because they are newest state by state 2020 election polls, behold the numbers sucking for Democrats, especially when anti-Trump bias is factored in.

Warren losing in every key swing state, Bernie splits them Trump like 50/50 with all Bernie's leads being within the margin of error, and Biden ahead slightly in everywhere except North Carolina. Go look at your own links, you posted them and you didn't even read the latest polls?

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Go look at the most recent polls in all the swing states, look for the results of the NYTimes/Sienna poll, behold the numbers sucking for Democrats, especially when anti-Trump bias is factored in.

That's not a Cite. 

See Trump crying about Fox News polls. 

https://deadline.com/2019/11/donald-trump-msn-cnn-fox-news-nbc-wsj-poll-impeachment-1202776698/

Polls that don't support Trump are Phoney. He tries to create his own reality. 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

That's not a Cite. 

See Trump crying about Fox News polls. 

https://deadline.com/2019/11/donald-trump-msn-cnn-fox-news-nbc-wsj-poll-impeachment-1202776698/

Polls that don't support Trump are Phoney. He tries to create his own reality. 

You already cited them. Your own RCP state by state polling links, do you read them? Guess not.

Warren is behind Trump in every swing state, Bernie splits them with Trump, BIden has slight lead in most of them except North Carolina. No big leads, and this is the NYTimes, who hate Trump with a passion.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

You already cited them. Your own links, do you read them? Guess not.

So, in your world, there's a 3% buffer that has to be achieved or Trump wins. Even with a Fox News Poll where the bias doesn't exist. 

The margin of error goes both ways. 

Nice fake world you live in. 

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

So, in your world, there's a 3% buffer that has to be achieved or Trump wins. Even with a Fox News Poll where the bias doesn't exist. 

The margin of error goes both ways. 

Nice fake world you live in. 

Fox News are consistently some of the worse for Trump, and they overestimated Clinton in 2016, in case you didn't notice, which you clearly didn't. Only Rasmussen got it right, and they are usually pro-Republican bias but that didn't even show up in 2016. In 2016 the LA Times was only pro-Trump biased poll, the vast majority had strong pro-Clinton bias, and a few good one's were pretty close, like Rasmussen and The Economist/YouGov. The polls chronically underrated Trump against Democrats, especially early in the race.

If you don't think the polls are biased in favor of Democrats, you really aren't paying any attention to polls. Polls have been underrating Republicans consistently, long before Trump, and that trend has been on steroids when it comes to Trump. The margin of error was consistently off, in Clinton's direction in 2016, and that is very likely the case in 2020.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

People who do not vote have no say. They choose to have no say. Givng them an opinion as you do to count them as not being for Trudeau is is an illogical inference.

Everyone knew it was going to be a close election. If more than 21% of eligible voters wanted Trudeau elected then they would have voted for him. He got 21% and the rest of Canada didn't want him, so they didn't vote for him. There's no lack of reason or logic there.

I never said that everyone who didn't vote wanted to vote for someone else, that would be illogical.

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Trudeau winning with a lower approval rating than Trump should be an indication that Trump's approval is clearly not a sign of his doom, as the wishful thinkers wish was the case.

The thing with Trump is that the 45 or 49% that support him, really support him. Voter apathy for Trump isn't going to be a big thing unless something changes drastically.

On the flipside, how many people are actually going to get off their asses and go wait in line at a polling booth to vote for whatever socialist the Dems belch out as a candidate?

Demmie voters will be thinking "I don't like Trump, but I can still bitch about him in public if I don't actually vote for him, and do I really want to cast a vote for a socialist that will eliminate my tax deduction and ring up $40 trillion of unmanageable debt, while simultaneously gutting the economy"?

Trump just has to throw a bone to the stupid global warming crowd if he wants to win. That will take some resolve away from the folks who would vote for a widespread famine just to get carbon emissions down by 1%.

Edited November 6, 2019 by WestCanMan

[Boges]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Fox News are consistently some of the worse for Trump, and they overestimated Clinton in 2016, in case you didn't notice, which you clearly didn't. Only Rasmussen got it right, and they are usually pro-Republican bias but that didn't even show up in 2016. In 2016 the LA Times was only pro-Trump biased poll, the vast majority had strong pro-Clinton bias, and a few good one's were pretty close, like Rasmussen and The Economist/YouGov. The polls chronically underrated Trump against Democrats, especially early in the race.

If you don't think the polls are biased in favor of Democrats, you really aren't paying any attention to polls. Polls have been underrating Republicans consistently, long before Trump, and that trend has been on steroids when it comes to Trump. The margin of error was consistently off, in Clinton's direction in 2016, and that is very likely the case in 2020.

So Fox has a Pro Dem Bias? And yet only the Pro Repub Polling of Rasmussen is accurate. 

And even if that was true. We have this 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_nov06

Quote

The president earned a monthly job approval of 46% in October, down two points from 48% in September. In January of this year, Trump’s monthly job approval had fallen to 44%, its lowest level in a year. But it jumped five points to 49% in February following his well-received State of the Union speech, recapturing the high ground he held for most of 2018. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapproved of the president’s job performance last month, up two points from the month before.

 

[Cannucklehead]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

He claimed to be Kenyan back in 1991 in certain situations, never said he's still doing it. Y'all need to learn to read, and stop putting words in other people's mouths to make yourself feel smart.

 

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Not relevant to the point being made.

Sigh...zig zag like trump.  Lol coherence went out the window.  

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

...or the mental retardation of Americans...careful now...your coin has two sides  to it as much as you pretend otherwise...

 

...and your two sided coin elected blackface to another term.   Salute !

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

Clinton was never impeached as you are well aware.

 

???   President Bill Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House in December 1998.   

Clearly you are not well aware.

[godzilla]

whew, finally a reasonable defense of Trump!  that their approach is so "incoherent" that they are "incapable" of quid pro quo! Lindsay is a genius! once Rs pile on here then this whole mess is over with!

Graham claimed there was no quid pro quo before he stopped caring about Trump’s conduct altogether

[Argus]

Canada's former ambassador to the US says Trump's incoherent foreign policy, recklessness and ignorance are a huge boon to Russia and China, which are pushing their influence forward to take over the vacuum left by waning American influence.

As Jim Sciutto illustrates in his book Shadow War, both Russia and China are more than ready to fill the leadership vacuum. As Ukrainians know too well, Russia under Putin is pushing to re-establish a Soviet-style Russian empire of the “near abroad.” The Baltic states fear more of the same and have little reason to believe that either the Americans or the Europeans will rise to their defence. Putin is following the advice of Lenin: “Push the knife in until you meet bone.” Thus far, he has seen little evidence of muscle let alone bone from the West.

China is resorting to massive cybersecurity attacks against the U.S. (and the West more generally) to bolster its economic growth and its security capabilities. No trade agreement will fully resolve this challenge. According to Sciutto, China’s “winning without fighting” strategy involves the creation of artificial islands in the South China Sea that serve as “unsinkable aircraft carriers” and are used to assert territorial claims and build military capacity far from the mainland. When Obama and Trump failed to impose significant costs, China continued to increase its maritime malfeasance.

Both Russia and China are determined to gain by strength and stealth what they might not achieve by outright war. An erratic president in the White House, relying on family and a small band of sycophants, could not be a more convenient handmaiden. Trust and credibility are essential anchors to U.S. global leadership. When both are diluted the world becomes a more dangerous place.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/derek-h-burney-china-and-russia-are-filling-the-gaps-a-reckless-trump-is-leaving