Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

Trump Is Good Thread ;-)

266 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BrooklynGuy

BTW for the few folks that may not know, The New York Post and Fox News are owned by the same company. :st

New poll shows Trump supporters won’t be swayed — by anything

Sixty-two percent of people who approve of the job President Trump is doing say that there would be nothing the commander in chief could do to shake their support, according to a Monmouth University poll out Tuesday. On the other hand, 70 percent of those who don’t approve of his job performance say there is nothing he could do that would win them over. Overall, 43 percent of the 401 respondents approve of Trump’s job, as opposed to 51 percent who disapprove. That is up from a September survey, where 41 percent approved while 53 percent disapproved.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/05/new-poll-shows-trump-supporters-wont-be-swayed-by-anything/

Edited by BrooklynGuy
  • Like 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56

That is a really small sample to get a real idea of how people feel.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CryptidSeeker

Is there a poll about people who dont care whose in charge? lol!

Although seriously i do think trump has changed how i see the government. i used to fully believe in the illuminati and all of that, and i guess i still sorta do in some ways, but i dont think theyd allow trump because he makes them all look so stupid! Obama i could believe was illuminati but not trump!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Our last president did a few horrific things and his supporters could not be swayed either. 

Fast & Furious in which guns illegally smuggled weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels by the ATF used to kill an American LEO and then Obama refused to let Holder be prosecuted for withholding documents associated with it.  Helped make the African country with the highest standard of living on the continent a 3rd world nation with open air slave markets.  Blamed a film maker for the deaths of American embassy staffers in Benghazi, which then resulted in more deaths when people started to protest the film.  He weaponized the IRS to take down political rivals. 

The list goes on.   

Right, he did all that on his own.  :rolleyes:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Just now, OverSword said:

Yes.  HE refused to let Holder be prosecuted for contempt.  HE authorized our participation in toppling Libya without going to congress for approval.  HE announced that it was a movie that caused the death of Americans in Benghazi.  HE sicked the IRS on political rivals.

 

And Trump's **** don't stink.  All of our presidents since Nixon or before have been bought and paid for reprobates.  Nixon stepped on his puppet master's toes so he got taken down.  None of them do anything without a puppet master allowing them (except Reagan and Trump when they go off script, at least Reagan had an excuse for that, not knowing what year it was most of the time).

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

And Trump's **** don't stink.  All of our presidents since Nixon or before have been bought and paid for reprobates.  Nixon stepped on his puppet master's toes so he got taken down.  None of them do anything without a puppet master allowing them (except Reagan and Trump when they go off script, at least Reagan had an excuse for that, not knowing what year it was most of the time).

The cat's out of the bag desertrat56 you have been dogging me for a month. Which post or thread of mine was it that sent you over the edge? And here I thgought we were pals. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

And Trump's **** don't stink.  All of our presidents since Nixon or before have been bought and paid for reprobates.  Nixon stepped on his puppet master's toes so he got taken down.  None of them do anything without a puppet master allowing them (except Reagan and Trump when they go off script, at least Reagan had an excuse for that, not knowing what year it was most of the time).

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Where did I mention Trump?  I gave legit examples of messed up things the last little god did and how his followers ignored or excused every crappy move he made just like what this article is about.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 minute ago, BrooklynGuy said:

The cat's out of the bag desertrat56 you have been dogging me for a month. Which post or thread of mine was it that sent you over the edge? And here I thgought we were pals. ;) 

I was answering Oversword.  I know you and I don't agree on some things, but we do on others.  I hate politicians of any flavor and blaming any president for everything or something that is on some puppetmaster's agenda is off balanced in my opinion.  Like some on this board who always blame everything on the "leftists" or "conservative" (seems to be a lot more of those blaming leftists than the ones who blame every thing on the conservatives).  Besides I thought Hillary was to blame for Benghazi.  There is no way we can tell what is really going on unless we are there.  We don't get good information from any of the news networks, fox, cbn, cnbc, nbc, disney (I mean abc) etc.  None of them tell the whole story and all of them have an agenda (their owners do).

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Where did I mention Trump?  I gave legit examples of messed up things the last little god did and how his followers ignored or excused every crappy move he made just like what this article is about.

Well, the thread is about Trump, not Obama so were you lost or confused, or you just needed to get that sillyness off your chest or what?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Well, the thread is about Trump, not Obama so were you lost or confused, or you just needed to get that sillyness off your chest or what?

Drawing the comparison between the fanatical followers of the two.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

That is a really small sample to get a real idea of how people feel.

You can actually get a statistically significant result from far fewer participants. In some areas of science, researchers can extrapolate results from 20 people to the general population if the methodology, including the selection of those chosen to participate, is sound. It's about quality, not only quantity (though more participants can bolster the validity of results of methodologically sound polling). To emphasise my point, it wouldn't matter if you polled 10,000 people if they were all Dems or all Republicans.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
5 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You can actually get a statistically significant result from far fewer participants. In some areas of science, researchers can extrapolate results from 20 people to the general population if the methodology, including the selection of those chosen in the case of political polling, it sound. It's about quality, not only quantity (though more participants can bolster the validity of results of methodologically sound polling). To emphasise my point, it wouldn't matter if you polled 10,000 people if they were all Dems or all Republicans.

Well, this was a university study which I take to mean that the 401 people surveyed were university students or professors.  So the sample is not a valid sample of the country, just students in that area.  You could poll 401 people in Albuquerque and get a totally different result than 401 people polled in Atlanta.  And it could depend on what neighborhood you were in, if you went to the mall, which mall, etc.  I understand that a small number can be used if the criteria for choosing them is a good sample of the whole.  I don't believe that a good sample was used.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Drawing the comparison between the fanatical followers of the two.  

That is exactly what it is, fanatics with no reasoning behind their fanaticism.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
33 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Well, this was a university study which I take to mean that the 401 people surveyed were university students or professors.  So the sample is not a valid sample of the country, just students in that area.  You could poll 401 people in Albuquerque and get a totally different result than 401 people polled in Atlanta.  And it could depend on what neighborhood you were in, if you went to the mall, which mall, etc.  I understand that a small number can be used if the criteria for choosing them is a good sample of the whole.  I don't believe that a good sample was used.

While social research (and psychology in general) in universities often utilise students, I'd be surprised if they did so with political polling. A university study doesn't automatically mean a study of university students.

Regardless, results aren't just taken at face value. They are processed through professional statistical software that takes into account many different variables and produces a number to signify its statistical significance. You can also use software to help pick the right sample size or target demographic for the planned poll. If the results didn't check out as statistically significant then they wouldn't be published.

From their methodology section which I read through while typing this post:

Quote

The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from October 30 to November 3, 2019 with a national random sample of 908 adults age 18 and older. This includes 364 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 544 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Telephone numbers were selected through random digit dialing and landline respondents were selected with a modified Troldahl-Carter youngest adult household screen. Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. The full sample is weighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census information (CPS 2018 supplement). Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field) and Dynata (RDD sample). For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_110519/

As you can see, there are standardised methods in place to address differences in the population. Also you can see that they didn't poll students.

Polling has its limits but it's still a science with the benefit of nearly a century of research and method-testing backing it up. They're continually improving.

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
18 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't believe that a good sample was used.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.  I agree.  It's also the reason that every remaining Dem candidate for the nomination AND their pizza guy is beating Trump in national polls.  They aren't fooling anyone who supports the president though.  I think they're doing it this time to set an expectation and when he does win again they'll attempt to use that expectation as some sort of "evidence" that he "cheated" again.  Sad.  Also, potentially dangerous.  The craziest thing is that when they file those Impeachment articles and the Senate votes quickly to acquit then some of the Senators might lose and if by some twist of fate the Senate fell back into Democrat hands, they'd Impeach all over again.  When they attempt THAT, this country will move against them like a brushfire.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Regardless, results aren't just taken at face value. They are processed through professional statistical software that takes into account many different variables and produces a number to signify its statistical significance.

I recall there being one or two polls in 2016 that were nearly accurate while the great majority were in the bag for HRC.  It all depends on the desire of the polling entity to get accurate results rather than to push an agenda.

Edited by and then
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 minutes ago, and then said:

When they attempt THAT, this country will move against them like a brushfire.

Against who? Who is it you think you'll be fighting in this coming war you're always talking about? The military, you think? I don't think so. It sounds to me like you're talking about politicians, the media and Dems. And in that case, do you know what that means? You're advocating politically motivated violence against civilians - commonly referred to as terrorism. That's what any nutjobs that joined your fantasy militias would be: terrorists. That's how the world would view them. You don't even have the self-awareness to realise that you're salivating over the prospect of becoming a terrorist in the name of Donald Trump.

You need to get a grip on reality and grow the **** up.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
10 minutes ago, and then said:

I recall there being one or two polls in 2016 that were nearly accurate while the great majority were in the bag for HRC.  It all depends on the desire of the polling entity to get accurate results rather than to push an agenda.

I've had this conversation with you multiple times. All the major polling institutions in the week leading up to the election had Trump win within the margin of error. I provided links to a list of 20 or something for you one time. I guess you didn't read it. The 97% thing you refer to in those previous posts (Trump being a sure thing), and I think allude to here, was meaningless predictions from networks, akin to bookies' odds - and if I remember correctly it was only a few of the news outlets that had those sorts of opinions, not the institutions who conducted the polls. The polling was all on-point.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
12 minutes ago, and then said:

Garbage In, Garbage Out.  I agree.  It's also the reason that every remaining Dem candidate for the nomination AND their pizza guy is beating Trump in national polls.  They aren't fooling anyone who supports the president though.  I think they're doing it this time to set an expectation and when he does win again they'll attempt to use that expectation as some sort of "evidence" that he "cheated" again.  Sad.  Also, potentially dangerous.  The craziest thing is that when they file those Impeachment articles and the Senate votes quickly to acquit then some of the Senators might lose and if by some twist of fate the Senate fell back into Democrat hands, they'd Impeach all over again.  When they attempt THAT, this country will move against them like a brushfire.

The evidence that is already out is worthy of kicking out any president. If the senate doesn't vote to do so it will be based solely on their spinelessness and tcss. It doesn't absolve him or prove he did nothing wrong. All it does is create a "new normal" for american politics in which anything goes if the president is doing it. Good luck with hoping future presidents follow ethical standards and practices after that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
1 hour ago, CryptidSeeker said:

Is there a poll about people who dont care whose in charge? lol!

Although seriously i do think trump has changed how i see the government. i used to fully believe in the illuminati and all of that, and i guess i still sorta do in some ways, but i dont think theyd allow trump because he makes them all look so stupid! Obama i could believe was illuminati but not trump!

In many polls with 2 answers the percentage of each answer doesn't always add up to 100. So 52% yes to 43% no means 5% don't care. Same with a presidential approval rating. When there's a 40% approval rating the disapproval is probably equal meaning 20% have no opinion.

On the flip side, one could argue, in fact very many do argue that there are puppet masters and Trump beat them and that's why he's been under attack since day one. With the Russia farce they did everything short of taking out a hit on him and he beat them again. The entire weight of every major media outlet, alphabet agency and power player in the country and some parts of the world all came together to create a fiasco that would've sent most politicians running away and giving a false confession and they failed. The deep state is real and you believed it until Trump told you about them and they told you not to listen to him. Wtf man? They played you like a fiddle.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

All it does is create a "new normal" for american politics in which anything goes if the president is doing it.

As long as they have the Senate to back them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Just curious here, from someone outside the fishbowl, let's put aside party lines, forget this is Trump, is Quid pro quo for personal and political ambitions legal or illegal, not weighing in the right or wrong... 

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
1 hour ago, third_eye said:

Just curious here, from someone outside the fishbowl, let's put aside party lines, forget this is Trump, is Quid pro quo for personal and political ambitions legal or illegal, not weighing in the right or wrong... 

~

Nothing wrong with a Quid Pro Quo if it involves a legal, lawful arrangement, or, deal.

Using political office to leverage the shutdown of a criminal or corruption probe into a family member isn't legal.  That's why Gropey Joe and his coke-a-holic son are in deep doo doo.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.