access to food, medical, shelter, luxury items, and savings. certainly I would prefer a society where everyone can live a comfortable life and the more ppl that are able to provide for themselves at a nice "middle-class" level then I think the better off society is. ofc, a society with a bunch of rich ppl would be healthy too. but you can imagine what a good stratification would be.

Almost (if not every) time I post about approval ratings I include the RCP average, which is the opposite of cherry picking as it includes all polls.

I have never seen a Trumpkin post an average, it's ALWAYS cherry-picking the best poll for Trump.

The January jobs report surveys a period of time in the middle of the month before Trump took office. You, as usual, are absolutely clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

Approval ratings in general don't mean a thing. Due to the nature of our political environment in the last few years, even less so. It's just harder to be popular, no matter which party you lead, these days.

Yes, it does feel weird to not have neo-con interventionists in charge for once.

It's good that they realized down stream effects are unpredictable and they will stop banging their heads against the wall. The question is how will they deal with leaders that don't cooperate?

Saddam Hussein wasn't exactly easy to control.

Your comment indicates to me that you never paid attention to Trump at all during the Republican primary.

In any case, the initial speech that swung TS to the Trump side was this one. I know because I was the one who showed it to him. I also shared my thesis as to why Trump would win back in August 2015 and December 2015 with him, as well as how to take action to make money, like shorting KSU right before the election was called.



In fact the only reason I'm bothering with PU sometimes is because I did not expect such vehement defense of Trump by TS afterwards, so I kinda feel bad that he got banned. Otherwise I'm normally content in watching stupid people drown in their echo chambers while I quietly short them without comment.

Uh, you've claimed to be a liberal Clinton voter for the last year. This would make you one of the people you've mocking as "losing", no?

And his approval rating does matter quite a bit. If he continues to bomb as horrendously as he currently is, he doesn't get re-elected, not to mention the potential midterm hit Republicans might end up taking.

It's entirely possible that this is one of the worst posts in this history of this website.

The 227K jobs run through January 12th, which is more than a full week before he even took office. (This is what happens when one stupidly gets their information from FoxNews and Breitbart). In reality, he's been in office for over three weeks and hasn't spent five seconds on jobs, the economy, or taxes. I'm sure the Rust Belt people who voted for him based on their moronic belief that he was going to create a plethora of manufacturing and coal mining jobs are very happy.

His EO's are anything but "momentous"; most of the things he signs are likely stuff he doesn't understand, masterminded by white supremacist Steve Bannon. The repeal of Obamacare is laughable, considering that Republicans don't even have a remote clue what to replace it with. The wall won't be built for years, if at all, and Mexico isn't paying for it. The refugee thing? You've already seen what's happened with it in the 9th Circuit, what will happen in SCOTUS, and the backlash it's caused.

His staff had several people barely get through confirmation proceedings that are usually automatic. It's filled with a bunch of unqualified, regressive, anti-LGBTQ people hated by the majority of the American public. DeVos can't even manage to successfully walk into a school without getting blocked.

Opinion of Gorsuch depends on what side of the ideological aisle you're on. At best, all he ends up being is a replacement for Scalia, which means you get back to the 5-4 edge you already had, after leaving the seat open for almost a year and a half.

I'm actually responsible for those jobs thanks to alt-facts.

What does one have to do with the other? Are you out in the streets protesting about something? I'm not, and I wouldn't. I'm saying it's amusing because what people predicted how Trump's supporters would act like if they won is exactly how they acted when they lost. It's call hyprocisy. That's why it's amusing.


Approval ratings mean nothing. George H bush had one of the highest approval ratings ever and lost his reelection campaign. The GOP will most likely lose big in midterms, but that's normal, it's part of the cycle.

This reminds me of the early voting numbers coming in and insisting it meant Clinton will win Florida. They didn't matter, and at this point approval ratings just don't mean anything. He's a historically unpopular president, no one expected his approval numbers to be much different than they currently are. Also, I'd question their accuracy at this point, as I would all polls.

Trump will never have high approval ratings even if he ends up being the greatest president ever. The never Trump movement is hell bent on taking him down. He will get reelected though for the same reasons he was elected in the first place. Intelligent people see through this smokescreen.

Will is correct. Approval ratings and polls, as we have seen, mean nothing in this current political climate.

Agree to disagree!

I was at a protest yesterday, as a matter of fact.
What people predicted about Trump's supporters was that they'd claim mass voter fraud if he lost, and perhaps engage in more of the violent and racist incidents we've seen since the election. What Democrats are doing now is mostly peaceful, and usually a push to try and keep rights from being rolled back.

No, they don't mean "nothing". GHWB had high approval ratings due to a quick Gulf War win. He was hurt by a slowing economy, plus the fact that he'd have been a 4th straight R term in the WH, which is nearly impossible to achieve. He ran into a young, charismatic buzzsaw with appeal to states in the South that Mondale and Dukakis didn't have.

People insisting she'd win Florida b/c of early turnout were pretty stupid. I wasn't one of them. I said over a year ago Trump would emerge victorious there. I posted my predictive map on this site and was one of the few who had it red.

If he continues to languish in the low 40's, or manages to fall into the 30's, he doesn't win in four years. He barely won this time out.

Actually this is a very good point. I remember vividly all the the predictions from the left that there would be rioting and mass protests if Clinton won, because the republicans would be such sore losers.

And what happened? There were riots and mass protests by the losers alright.

The sheer hypocrisy from the left is quite staggering.

306 to 232 is a pretty good spanking. Clinton spent how much more money than Trump? Trump turned how many states red?

What part of "let's burn this mfer down" is the peaceful part?

If Ivanka Trump was a Democrat the regressive left would be calling Nordstroms a mysoginistic company for not carrying her product.

She would be put on a platform as a role model and beloved by all Democratic women.

He flipped 6.

306-232 is a difference of the three surprise states he miracle'd in the Midwest/Rust Belt. Or two of them + FL. Or just PA+FL.

You change 80K votes between PA/MI/WI out of the 137 million votes cast, and she's the President.

It's pretty much the narrowest margin possible outside of 2000.

This happens at every anti-Trump protest? News to me.

Reasonable definition. I'd argue society as a whole is better of with more conservative laws than we currently have, but hat is obviously up for debate. My argument would be what a middle-class income is grows more with conservative laws.

I think that middle-class income, and income growing towards middle-class, and income growing out of poverty, all benefit greatly from shifting the tax burden to the upper class, removing consumer taxes, removing banking fees, from introducing consumer protection, from stiffening business and investing regulations, and allowing for investing protection.

in my mind, those are all "liberal" laws.

It would be nice to have him describe the mechanism that links economic activity to the liberalness or it's laws...

What does remove banking fees mean? I have an account that doesn't have a minimum balance that is totally free and I get reimbursed for all ATM fees. Granted I don't have a history of a bunch of overdrafts.

Why would stiffening business and investing regulation help the middle class?

What is investing protection and how do we get it?

Hey guys, is Kushner's newspaper a liberal fake news outlet?

The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins: Intelligence Community pushes back against a White House it considers leaky, untruthful and penetrated by the Kremlin

Make lucidity in the WH exist again!

many ppl without bank accounts are forced to get paid (by their jobs) via prepaid cards and then are hit with fees. some jobs even pay ppl who have bank accts in this way as they have made deals with visa.

I read about one state changed the way they were going to compensate with jury duty. rather than issuing a check, they are using these sort of visas that have fees on withdrawals and dont even allow withdrawals of less than 20$ increments. these sort of hidden fees really eat into poor ppls finances.

other problems are draconian overdraft fees and service charges for low balances. yes, some accts dont have those, but many do. I think they should be illegal.

and I think there should have been massively worse penalties for wells-fargo for the fraud that they engaged in. they should have been crippled as there needs to be disincentive for that sort of activity.

I had in my mind the recent removal of regulation that required financial advisors to put the interest of their investors first when making investment decision. I mean, that is simply common sense. but it was repealed and now advisors are able to seek out vehicles that maximize the return for the advisor. how is that remotely fair?

to avoid massive market crashes like the one in 2008 that killed the savings and housing of many ppl. in my mind, this was the fault of businesses not just beint criminally negligent, but of engaging in fraud. except it was nearly the whole industry that contributed.

there needs to be laws in place so that such disasters are avoided.