Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

02-12-2017 , 11:07 PM
The Politico poll was the only one I saw with a net favorable for the travel ban. Most had it negative, albeit only slightly.
02-12-2017 , 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
Seems like a fair few of the executive orders have good approval ratings even if the President himself does not.
When we talk about Trump's relatively low approval ratings among Republicans and Indies, it's important to keep in mind that most of the horrible **** he's done as president has nothing to do with it. Muslim ban, trampling civil liberties, breaking up families by deporting people who have been here since adolescence, those are all winners. Judging by every NPR Hillbilly Elegy type segment I've heard, the main thing they don't like is his temperament, particularly on Twitter. It's embarrassing them. If he ever gets off Twitter, but keeps smashing vulnerable people, expect his approval ratings to climb back over 50.

With all the chatter in the other thread of whether HRC is the WOAT for losing to Donald Effing Trump, remember this: at least 40 percent of Americans are provincial scum who by and large want what he wants. And not just GOP either.

Last edited by AllTheCheese; 02-12-2017 at 11:12 PM.
02-12-2017 , 11:16 PM



popcorn.gif
02-12-2017 , 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
Interesting how Awval is nowhere to be seen now that his idol is actively burning the US to the ground.
I still lurk.
02-12-2017 , 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hornbug
Oroville looks like an act of God.

Wonder how many feel that this is a response to California's high level of hate for Trump?

The President's play, divert all funds not released to sanctuary cities to be used for flood relief instead.
Yeah was interesting hearing DeBlasio talk about the only funds trump might be able to withhold from a city like New York would be used to fund police and anti terrorism resources.

They can't just withhold funding, it doesn't work like that, so I can't wait until push comes to shove and you have 50 mayors talking about how trump is witholding money from police and security in the name of security.
02-12-2017 , 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
No. Regulated utilities companies is a fine model.
Saw this the other day and thought it was interesting, it will be interesting to see how utilities evolve as a business model when renewables become more prevalent.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...ewable-energy/
02-12-2017 , 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
Seems like a fair few of the executive orders have good approval ratings even if the President himself does not.


Seems like there are about 30,000,000 dumb asses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02-12-2017 , 11:58 PM
I'm sure this has already been posted but this article is fascinating.

Basically, US intelligence agencies know of Trump administration lies and ties to the Kremlin.

They are withholding intelligence information due to what they feel is a perceived leak inside the ****ing White House, feeding Russia real time intelligence.

For your reading pleasure (or horror):

The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins
02-13-2017 , 12:04 AM
this is all coming from the same guy though, how reliable is he on this?
02-13-2017 , 12:06 AM
No surprised the ban has a fair amount of support. Honestly I think it would have had much more support if it had been thought out and discussed a bit more, and actually addressed the concerns they purport to address.

I wonder what percentage of people who are generally in favor of a Muslim Ban actually know any Muslims. Of have a mosque in their town, or are getting overrun with refugees. I can't imagine some ****ty Nebraska town is high on ISIS's hit list.
02-13-2017 , 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
this is all coming from the same guy though, how reliable is he on this?
Well we know the bombshell WaPo article cited either 9 or 11 independent sources about the Flynn/Russian Ambassador connection. And that is backed up by actual transcripts.

I don't know if this article is accurate but I found it fascinating. Although not quite sure we'd file this under the "fake news" header.

It's going to be another **** show of a week, we know that for sure.
02-13-2017 , 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfinillini
Well we know the bombshell WaPo article cited either 9 or 11 independent sources about the Flynn/Russian Ambassador connection.

I don't know if this article is accurate but I found it fascinating. Although not quite sure we'd file this under the "fake news" header.

It's going to be another **** show of a week, we know that for sure.
ok i was thinking maybe that WaPo article came from the same guy with the same sources but if not then, good.
02-13-2017 , 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minirra
No surprised the ban has a fair amount of support. Honestly I think it would have had much more support if it had been thought out and discussed a bit more, and actually addressed the concerns they purport to address.

I wonder what percentage of people who are generally in favor of a Muslim Ban actually know any Muslims. Of have a mosque in their town, or are getting overrun with refugees. I can't imagine some ****ty Nebraska town is high on ISIS's hit list.
I'd say almost none. It's probably very similar to those who live closest to immigrants don't have a problem with immigrants.
02-13-2017 , 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
ok i was thinking maybe that WaPo article came from the same guy with the same sources but if not then, good.
The WaPo article was published in conjunction with a New York Times article discussing ties to Russia.

Flynn has had dinner with and has been photographed with Putin.

I'm not entering conspiracy theory territory here, just thought the article was interesting.
02-13-2017 , 12:17 AM
Quote:
If that's the only implication then I'm really scratching my head now. Why would a Republican want parents not to be responsible for kids?
Because obviously babies conceived in some way other than in the missionary position with the lights off are an abomination, silly. And if a woman's womb is barren then God must have had a good reason for it.
02-13-2017 , 12:21 AM
Quote:
Why would a Republican want parents not to be responsible for kids?
Men should have the option. Just a guess.
02-13-2017 , 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan42
Because obviously babies conceived in some way other than in the missionary position with the lights off are an abomination, silly. And if a woman's womb is barren then God must have had a good reason for it.
Isn't it just the typical Republican move to get around marriage equality by hampering gay couples in an oblique way, and the likewise typical Republican habit of not thinking through the logical consequences?
02-13-2017 , 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceKicker
Isn't it just the typical Republican move to get around marriage equality by hampering gay couples in an oblique way, and the likewise typical Republican habit of not thinking through the logical consequences?


This is exactly correct
02-13-2017 , 12:42 AM
Even the inauguration poster creators have spelling issues.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...s-glaring-typo
02-13-2017 , 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoltinJake
SNL has been brutal for team Trump IMO. Like with Palin, people are going to start associating the SNL characters with the real people.
I'm not sure that's a good thing. I basically think satire now just legitimises and normalises its targets. I'd need to be on a barstool to explain it properly, but I suspect it's because of the mainstreaming of irony and kitsch we've seen over the last couple of decades. Or at least that the two share a root somehow.

Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of it. But I always think about how Palin appeared on SNL with Tina Fey, and also about Peter Cook's joke about how he hoped his comedy club would carry on the tradition of the Weimar satirists who did so much to prevent the rise of Nazism.
02-13-2017 , 12:50 AM
02-13-2017 , 12:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfinillini
I'm sure this has already been posted but this article is fascinating.

Basically, US intelligence agencies know of Trump administration lies and ties to the Kremlin.

They are withholding intelligence information due to what they feel is a perceived leak inside the ****ing White House, feeding Russia real time intelligence.

For your reading pleasure (or horror):

The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins
Schindler is entertaining to read, but deserves lots of skepticism. He was all in on EMAILS during the campaign to a comical extent.
02-13-2017 , 01:06 AM
02-13-2017 , 01:07 AM
Can someone give a cliffs on the legal implications of "illegitimacy" (which I never knew was a thing, how is this a thing in 2017, lol Republicans)? I assume the purpose is to punish lesbians, but how will it work?

      
m