• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Trump has Lowest Approval rating of Any New President

People didn't like working for Steve Jobs.

Are you saying we are working for Donald Trump? BTW, by every measure, Steve Jobs was an absolutely despicable human being, so I don't know I that I would make that comparison.
 
Are you saying we are working for Donald Trump? BTW, by every measure, Steve Jobs was an absolutely despicable human being, so I don't know I that I would make that comparison.

I wish I knew who you were working for because you certainly aren't supporting job creation, economic growth, secure border, personal responsibility and individual wealth creation which is the foundation upon which this country was created and made it the greatest power on the face of the earth. Maybe that is the problem you hate success.

Your focus is on giving people what you think they want while ignoring that you are creating a dependent class that won't change personal behavior. Throwing money at the problem may make you feel good but it creates an entitlement mentality that divides people into classes. You apparently have no problem with that
 
Are you saying we are working for Donald Trump? BTW, by every measure, Steve Jobs was an absolutely despicable human being, so I don't know I that I would make that comparison.

Naw...just pointing out that being well-liked isn't synonymous with doing a good job. However, I don't think Trump is doing a good job in many ways, it's just the poles really mean nothing important.
 
This thread was anything but mere defamation: it talks about his Tax policy/brackets.
This is about as IN bounds as a string can be!
We can't criticize his Income tax policy?
Hey, why not call it "Fake News".

Your post, OTOH, is the usual Partisan garbage and OFF Topic.
(Empty last wording and MORE OFF TOPIC trash talk necessarily follows, but I don't)

ON topic replies, OTOH, will be responded to.

The problem Biggie is that this thread is based on the results of a poll conducted by CNN/ORC. Have you ever actually looked at the poll to understand how it was conducted?

Here is a cut and past from the poll referenced directly through the link in The Hill article.

CNN-ORC Methodology.jpg

So, 29% of those polled identified as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and a whopping 45% identified as Independents or some other party. I'm guessing Tea Party was not part of those "others" they could identify with.

This is a classic example of oversample which has plagued left leaning Polling for quite some time. CNN has gone full monty in attack Trump mode, I guess because they are trying to hold on to some kind of audience. That should be taken into consideration when reviewing any poll they are involved with.

Hey, hang on to whatever floats your boat, but paddling around in a bath tub is not going to get people where they hope to go.
 
The problem Biggie is that this thread is based on the results of a poll conducted by CNN/ORC. Have you ever actually looked at the poll to understand how it was conducted?
Here is a cut and past from the poll referenced directly through the link in The Hill article.
View attachment 67213799
So, 29% of those polled identified as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and a whopping 45% identified as Independents or some other party.
I'm Guessing Tea Party was not part of those "others" they could identify with.
This is a classic example of oversample which has plagued left leaning Polling for quite some time. CNN has gone full monty in attack Trump mode, I guess because they are trying to hold on to some kind of audience. That should be taken into consideration when reviewing any poll they are involved with. Hey, hang on to whatever floats your boat, but paddling around in a bath tub is not going to get people where they hope to go.
What? Huh?
An unwitting joke of a post feigning knowledge.
First, Tea Party may be Republican for polling purpose.
Second, you're admittedly "Guessing" that Tea Party isn't among the independents?
So you DON'T really Know methodology but criticizing the poll for it anyway!
LOFL

OH, and thanks to Fenton for Bumping this string up after it was dead for 6 days.
Great tactics!
 
Last edited:
What? Huh?
First, Tea Party may be Republican for polling purpose.
Second, you're admittedly "Guessing" that Tea Party isn't among the independents?
So you DON'T Know methodology, but are criticizing the poll withOUT knowing it!
LOFL

LOL

What a colossal stretch. Even for you.

Is there even a Tea Party?

Have you seen Libertarians supporting Trump? How about Green Party members?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/independent-voters-are-overrated/

This is illustrated well by the most recent Pew Research Center report on party identification, released just a couple days ago. According to Pew’s yearlong study, 33 percent of registered voters identify as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans and 34 percent as independents.1

In other words, the seesaw is often imbalanced.​

You were saying?
 
What? Huh?
An unwitting joke of a post feigning knowledge.
First, Tea Party may be Republican for polling purpose.

Second, you're admittedly "Guessing" that Tea Party isn't among the independents?
So you DON'T really Know methodology but criticizing the poll for it anyway!
LOFL

OH, and thanks to Fenton for Bumping this string up after it was dead for 6 days.
Great tactics!
LOL
What a colossal stretch. Even for you.
Is there even a Tea Party?
Have you seen Libertarians supporting Trump? How about Green Party members?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/independent-voters-are-overrated/
This is illustrated well by the most recent Pew Research Center report on party identification, released just a couple days ago. According to Pew’s yearlong study, 33 percent of registered voters identify as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans and 34 percent as independents.1
In other words, the seesaw is often imbalanced.​
You were saying?
What? Huh?
what does your post have to do with the CNN/ORC, one for which you admittedly had to "GUESS" to make your claim/criticism of methodology?
All those words, all that authoritative posturing, and you Didn't/Still don't even know methodology! Ooof.
Your new link dump doesn't help.
 
Last edited:
What? Huh?
what does your post have to do with the CNN/ORC, one for which you admittedly had to "GUESS" to make your claim/criticism of methodology?
All those words, all that authoritative posturing, and you Didn't/Still don't even know methodology! Ooof.
Your new link dump doesn't help.

LOL

I didn't guess at anything biggie. You're the one guessing.

I simply posted the facts missing from the conclusion presented in the OP.

The fact you're clinging to this "guess" things proves your getting a bit desperate to defend a poll that oversampled people to present a desired result.

The link I provided shows party identification as identified in a year long study.

No need to dislocate your extremities to try and deny the facts presented.
 
LOL
I didn't guess at anything biggie. You're the one guessing.
I simply posted the facts missing from the conclusion presented in the OP.
The fact you're clinging to this "guess" things proves your getting a bit desperate to defend a poll that oversampled people to present a desired result.
The link I provided shows party identification as identified in a year long study.
No need to dislocate your extremities to try and deny the facts presented.
Now, outright Lying.
You "guessed" and that was YOUR terminology/Admission.
ocean515 in post #29 said:
..So, 29% of those polled identified as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and a whopping 45% identified as Independents or some other party. I'm Guessing Tea Party was not part of those "others" they could identify with.".."

Again, many Tea Partiers may be included as/ARE Republicans. Some may be independents/etc. It's not like anyone said 'Lets not call Tea Partiers', or that would have been mentioned in the methodology.
 
Last edited:
Now, outright Lying.
You "guessed" and that was YOUR terminology/Admission.


Again, many Tea Partiers may be included as/ARE Republicans.

Since you seem to know. Please post the percentage of Tea Party members represented in that 45%.

In fact, perhaps you could post some facts regarding the number of Tea Party members there are in the country.

You know, the ones who registered as members of the Tea Party in the last election cycle.
 
Since you seem to know. Please post the percentage of Tea Party members represented in that 45%.
In fact, perhaps you could post some facts regarding the number of Tea Party members there are in the country.
You know, the ones who registered as members of the Tea Party.
1. You've been beaten on "Guess".
YOU Guessed.
Then you Lied.
2. Now you're trying the Burden Shift/Detail fallacy.
I don't have to provide detailed/exact breakdowns.
As I said in my last, ""Again, many Tea Partiers may be included as/ARE Republicans. Some may be independents/etc. It's not like anyone said 'Lets not call Tea Partiers', or that would have been mentioned in the methodology.""
3. Gameover.
 
Coming from pollsters who spent the last year getting everything wrong. Who said Hillary had a 90+% chance of winning. Who said she would get a landslide record setting electoral win. Who when they could no longer ignore Trumps huge campaign rally crowds predicted he might win the popular vote but Hillary would still get 350+ electoral votes.

Most polls got it correct within the margin of error. Stop spreading falsehoods.
 
I wish I knew who you were working for because you certainly aren't supporting job creation, economic growth, secure border, personal responsibility and individual wealth creation which is the foundation upon which this country was created and made it the greatest power on the face of the earth. Maybe that is the problem you hate success.

Your focus is on giving people what you think they want while ignoring that you are creating a dependent class that won't change personal behavior. Throwing money at the problem may make you feel good but it creates an entitlement mentality that divides people into classes. You apparently have no problem with that


^
^
^
One big word salad attempt at a strawman argument...
 
And typical leftwing diversion from answering the question or responding to the post

Your post had nothing at all to do with my post you responded to. I responded to a post where Trump was compared to Steve Jobs by pointing out, correctly, that as a person, Steve Jobs was a despicable human being.

You then responded to my post with the following diatribe that had nothing at all to do with what I wrote:

I wish I knew who you were working for because you certainly aren't supporting job creation, economic growth, secure border, personal responsibility and individual wealth creation which is the foundation upon which this country was created and made it the greatest power on the face of the earth. Maybe that is the problem you hate success.

Your focus is on giving people what you think they want while ignoring that you are creating a dependent class that won't change personal behavior. Throwing money at the problem may make you feel good but it creates an entitlement mentality that divides people into classes. You apparently have no problem with that

1. I don't hate success. I consider myself a hardworking person that is happy and content with his life.

2. I have never taken a cent in any government benefits, not even so much an unemployment check, in my entire life. This is despite the fact that I grew up in poverty.

3. I called Steve Jobs a despicable human being because he denied paternity of his daughter for several years, leaving her and her mother in poverty. As a father, I can of few things more despicable than that.
 
Your post had nothing at all to do with my post you responded to. I responded to a post where Trump was compared to Steve Jobs by pointing out, correctly, that as a person, Steve Jobs was a despicable human being.

You then responded to my post with the following diatribe that had nothing at all to do with what I wrote:


1. I don't hate success. I consider myself a hardworking person that is happy and content with his life.

2. I have never taken a cent in any government benefits, not even so much an unemployment check, in my entire life. This is despite the fact that I grew up in poverty.

3. I called Steve Jobs a despicable human being because he denied paternity of his daughter for several years, leaving her and her mother in poverty. As a father, I can of few things more despicable than that.

You asked if you were working for Donald Trump and seemed to tie him to Steve Jobs when there is no comparison if you looked at the Trump children and how they turned out. Calling Jobs despicable is one thing but comparing Trump to Jobs in that context doesn't make any sense to me
 
Amazing the vitriol that the media and astro-turfed groups have sent his way.
Hard to believe that Democrats were complaining about obstructionist Republicans a while back.
We should not be too concerned. There is a lot of hatred and violence directed at Trump supporters so it is smart for them to keep very low profiles. Lot of deranged people out there.

And I believe that Obama averaged c. 47.3% approval rating over his 8 years so it is not unknown to be below 50%.
 
You asked if you were working for Donald Trump and seemed to tie him to Steve Jobs when there is no comparison if you looked at the Trump children and how they turned out. Calling Jobs despicable is one thing but comparing Trump to Jobs in that context doesn't make any sense to me

I was responding to a post where someone compared Trump to Steve Jobs.
 
Scots teach us how to handle Trump...

 
Scots teach us how to handle Trump...



Keep handing him the way you are ignoring what is going on behind the scenes while focusing on insignificant things like the TEMPORARY Travel ban. Samantha Bee, LOL, yep the lady who posted about the President not reading the Daily PDB's and having a terrorist attack. what she forgot to tell you that headline represented Clinton not Trump with the 12/98 PDB. What exactly did he do to prevent 9/11? Think a little vetting might have helped, you know from countries that never attacked us??
 
1. You've been beaten on "Guess".
YOU Guessed.
Then you Lied.
2. Now you're trying the Burden Shift/Detail fallacy.
I don't have to provide detailed/exact breakdowns.
As I said in my last, ""Again, many Tea Partiers may be included as/ARE Republicans. Some may be independents/etc. It's not like anyone said 'Lets not call Tea Partiers', or that would have been mentioned in the methodology.""
3. Gameover.

LOL

What ever you need to believe mbig.

:screwy
 
You know what they say about polls concerning Trump. :shrug:

If you don't, just look back to the campaign season. :coffeepap:

Yeah, they said Clinton was a tiny bit more popular than he was.

And on election night, she won the popular vote by over three million people.

The EC college put him in the White House - not the will of the people.

Don't bother answering this post - save it for someone who gives a ****.

I am merely pointing out facts.


BTW - I despise both parties.
 
Feel free to quote a poll that did not say Hillary would not win a massive electoral college victory?

Here's the RCP average from Nov 7th:

RCP_Electoral_prediction.jpg

They had her in a 300-330 range through most of October, but that advantage fell away in the waning days. She was up 297-241 just one day earlier on the sixth.

I've been living and dying with presidential elections since 1968. They can break yer heart. The Negro's two victories were among the most joyful experiences of my life. You win some and you lose some.
 
Back
Top Bottom