President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

slovakchick

the polls have serious flaws in the the smarter ours machines and polling systems the worse our predictions, go figure

El_Duderino 09

slovakchick wrote:

the polls have serious flaws in the the smarter ours machines and polling systems the worse our predictions, go figure

Well there used to be one main way to contact the everyone through their landline. Almost everyone answered phone and here was no caller ID. So you got a proper crossection of society. Now people are so bombarded by media that they don't feel obliged to answer questions.

It's nothing to do with smarter machines. It's to do with soliciting answers from people.

eire4

slovakchick wrote: »

the polls have serious flaws in the the smarter ours machines and polling systems the worse our predictions, go figure

If your referencing the polls leading into the presidential elections last November saying Clinton had the lead then they indeed proved to be accurate. Most polls had Clinton up by 2-3% heading into the election and with her margin of about 2.8m more votes then Trump those polls were accurate. The narrative that the polls called the presidential election wrong is false.

slovakchick

the polls caused Clinton campaign to feel quietly confident of a victory in Wisconsin and Michigan, and to therefore air few advertisements in those states, those polls were wrong

Valord

slovakchick wrote: »

the polls caused Clinton campaign to feel quietly confident of a victory in Wisconsin and Michigan, and to therefore air few advertisements in those states, those polls were wrong

It's true that the polls had a larger error in the swing states than overall, (I believe they were off by about 2.7 points there, which is reasonably big but still considered fairly normal in elections), but a lot of the problem with the rust belt states was a lack of serious polling. Conventional wisdom didn't consider them very competitive so there wasn't a huge amount of polling done there in general. Eyes were focused on places like North Carolina, Florida and Nevada, even Arizona.

Michigan and Wisconsin are widely held up as examples of Clinton mismanagement and it is true that she should have locked places like that down instead of getting hubristic and trying to win Arizona and Georgia, but it's also kind of a moot point because winning WI and MI wouldn't have changed the result. She campaigned heavily in NC, FL and PA and still narrowly lost all of them and she would have needed one of those in addition to WI and MI to actually win.

J Mysterio

Is anybody watching the live feed of the car procession through Washington? It's bizarre, and ominous.

slovakchick

"american carnage"- bad band or what is it?

Ronaldinho

slovakchick wrote: »

"american carnage"- bad band or what is it?

"But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, But which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge; and the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now."

Guess he was referring to the stuff he mentioned in the previous paragraph. Bits I highlighted in blue are terrible. Full transcript here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/20/donald-trumps-full-inauguration-speech-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.fb8589c45b11#annotations:11203385

slovakchick

seems fair enough

El_Duderino 09

Ronaldinho wrote:

"But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, But which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge; and the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

Get white people back working while pointing out that blacks cause all the trouble with their gangs and drugs. Very popular with his supporters I have to imagine

slovakchick

didnt trump university scam its students google this...trump-university-lawsuit-settle

MightyMandarin

mattser wrote: »

Great evenings entertainment.

I agree, that car-crash of a speech was an absolute goldmine. I thought he'd be smart enough to let a speechwriter do it, but nope he chose to do it himself and act like he was speaking at a rally in Des Moines last January. Absolutely hilarious.

He prides himself on his image, especially now he'll want to be "presidential" but nobody will take him seriously with speeches a 4 year old wouldn't write. Can't wait for the first twitter meltdown as president.

Billy86

Before the election:


Today:



Not a good sign at all, wasn't drawing huge crowds supposed to be one of his main strengths? Seems like he's losing them, and losing them pretty quickly at that.

MightyMandarin

Billy86 wrote: »

Not a good sign at all, wasn't drawing huge crowds supposed to be one of his main strengths? Seems like he's losing them, and losing them pretty quickly at that.

The ****show of an inauguration gets even better.

Trump's new background photo is from a presidential inauguration, but whose exactly?

Oh that's right, it's from Kenya's most famous president Barack Obama's inauguration.

El_Duderino 09

MightyMandarin wrote:

He prides himself on his image, especially now he'll want to be "presidential" but nobody will take him seriously with speeches a 4 year old wouldn't write. Can't wait for the first twitter meltdown as president.

Who's he speaking to? His core voters don't want big words and lofty ideals. They want simple ideas - rust belt good, inner city bad.

He education point is ironic given his university scam but his voters aren't worrying about that

Frank Bullitt

Make America show up again.

Valord

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I agree, that car-crash of a speech was an absolute goldmine. I thought he'd be smart enough to let a speechwriter do it, but nope he chose to do it himself and act like he was speaking at a rally in Des Moines last January. Absolutely hilarious.

He prides himself on his image, especially now he'll want to be "presidential" but nobody will take him seriously with speeches a 4 year old wouldn't write. Can't wait for the first twitter meltdown as president.

I was somewhat surprised to see him stick with such a downbeat speech. Especially after him thanking Obama, it was a little jarring for him to talk about the country in such poor terms. I had kind of expected this to be much more focused on "winning" from now on than bemoaning the current state of the country. Has this kind of thing happened with other recent presidents? The likes of Reagan and Clinton came to power as a rejection of the previous leaders and the troubled times they represented, but did they talk about those things in their speeches?

Frank Bullitt

And again

MightyMandarin

Newt Gingrich wants to fire federal employees who voted for Hillary.

The only risk, Gingrich later noted to the New York Times, is that entering the White House and instantly slashing a federal agency’s permanent staff will likely lead employees “to find ways to sabotage each new cabinet secretary as soon as they walk through the door.”
Offering perhaps the most nakedly political argument for firing federal employees, Gingrich said, “all those bureaucrats overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. There won’t be any real cooperation until we change federal law so we can fire them.”

Honestly, Gingrich can go **** off with his fascist ideas.

realitykeeper

Donald Trump say he will now not build the wall (at Doonbeg) but I have an awful feeling the wall will be built and the Irish will pay for it. We pay for the bankers, so why not Donald`s wall? Do not be surprised if Enda returns from America after St Patrick`s day with a to-do list from Donald.

Frank Bullitt

And the numbers apparently for the days of being sworn in:

Trump 2017: 250,000
Obama 2013: 1,000,000
Obama 2009: 1,800,000

Record numbers...record low.

MightyMandarin

Gintonious wrote: »

And the numbers apparently for the days of being sworn in:

Trump 2017: 250,000
Obama 2013: 1,000,000
Obama 2009: 1,800,000

Record numbers...record low.

Record low approval rating aswell at 27%. Incidentally that's lower than both Clinton and Obama at their worst, and only 5% higher than the lowest ever recorded at 22% for Truman.

Frank Bullitt

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Record low approval rating aswell at 27%. Incidentally that's lower than both Clinton and Obama at their worst, and only 5% higher than the lowest ever recorded at 22% for Truman.

I thought it was 37%, which is still stupidly low.

mcmoustache

Gintonious wrote: »

And the numbers apparently for the days of being sworn in:

Trump 2017: 250,000
Obama 2013: 1,000,000
Obama 2009: 1,800,000

Record numbers...record low.

SAD

OxfordColours

Gintonious wrote: »

And the numbers apparently for the days of being sworn in:

Trump 2017: 250,000
Obama 2013: 1,000,000
Obama 2009: 1,800,000

Record numbers...record low.

Obamas two inaugerations didn't have thousands of vandals blocking peoples approach to the inaugeration. routes blocked by protesters, air force personnel mocked and blocked

Or antifa types smashing up windows http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-protests-idUSKBN1540J7

And they didn't require tear gas to disperse violent protesters http://news.sky.com/story/anti-trump-protesters-smash-windows-in-tense-scenes-before-inauguration-10735956

People think Trumps success heralds the rise of fascism - yet the only silencing of voices and political opinion is from the anti-trump protesters. The only krystalnacht-style attacking of business is done by anti-trump voters. Imagine ANY of the above happening at Obamas inaugeration - there'd be uproar in the media, with the 'right wing' blamed (and rightly so, thankfully they aren't as scummy)

Valord

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Record low approval rating aswell at 27%. Incidentally that's lower than both Clinton and Obama at their worst, and only 5% higher than the lowest ever recorded at 22% for Truman.

Have you got a source on 27%? The lowest I've seen is 37% with averages of around 40%, which is still record lows in the 36 years they've been measuring it. 27% would be really remarkable, especially considering inauguration tends to be a high point for ratings.

I was wondering today, President Bush's approval ratings shot sky high in the wake of the WTC attacks, because an attack from an outside aggressor tends to really re-enforce national solidarity. Do you think if something like that were to (God forbid) happen under Trump, would it do the same for him? Or, now that we're more alert to this type of thing, would it hurt him? Would people cast it as being his fault for not paying attention to intelligence briefings?

Valord

OxfordColours wrote: »

Obamas two inaugerations didn't have thousands of vandals blocking peoples approach to the inaugeration. routes blocked by protesters, air force personnel mocked and blocked

Or antifa types smashing up windows http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-protests-idUSKBN1540J7

And they didn't require tear gas to disperse violent protesters http://news.sky.com/story/anti-trump-protesters-smash-windows-in-tense-scenes-before-inauguration-10735956

People think Trumps success heralds the rise of fascism - yet the only silencing of voices and political opinion is from the anti-trump protesters. The only krystalnacht-style attacking of business is done by anti-trump voters. Imagine ANY of the above happening at Obamas inaugeration - there'd be uproar in the media, with the 'right wing' blamed (and rightly so, thankfully they aren't as scummy)

I'm not defending the actions of rioters, but the Reuters article even says:

The Disrupt J20 group on Twitter said its anger was not directed only at Trump, that it would also have demonstrated had Democrat Hillary Clinton won the election last November.

These people aren't mainstream Democrat voters. They're the far-left. The Democratic mayor of DC condemned these attacks too. However, while this behaviour isn't okay, I don't see how it's silencing voices. It's vandalism, pure and simple.

MightyMandarin

Valord wrote: »

Have you got a source on 27%? The lowest I've seen is 37% with averages of around 40%, which is still record lows in the 36 years they've been measuring it. 27% would be really remarkable, especially considering inauguration tends to be a high point for ratings.

I was wondering today, President Bush's approval ratings shot sky high in the wake of the WTC attacks, because an attack from an outside aggressor tends to really re-enforce national solidarity. Do you think if something like that were to (God forbid) happen under Trump, would it do the same for him? Or, now that we're more alert to this type of thing, would it hurt him? Would people cast it as being his fault for not paying attention to intelligence briefings?

Yeah misread 37% as 27%, still pretty dreadful though. Considering that his ratings are going down by the day at the moment, and inauguration is typically the high watermark during a presidency, it won't be long before he hits the 20's imo.

Wait till people find out about the ACA 'replacement', and the ever-growing Russian saga. He'll be in the **** then.

MightyMandarin

OxfordColours wrote: »

Obamas two inaugerations didn't have thousands of vandals blocking peoples approach to the inaugeration. routes blocked by protesters, air force personnel mocked and blocked

Or antifa types smashing up windows http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-protests-idUSKBN1540J7

And they didn't require tear gas to disperse violent protesters http://news.sky.com/story/anti-trump-protesters-smash-windows-in-tense-scenes-before-inauguration-10735956

People think Trumps success heralds the rise of fascism - yet the only silencing of voices and political opinion is from the anti-trump protesters. The only krystalnacht-style attacking of business is done by anti-trump voters. Imagine ANY of the above happening at Obamas inaugeration - there'd be uproar in the media, with the 'right wing' blamed (and rightly so, thankfully they aren't as scummy)

Yeah obviously those clowns do more harm than good but is the 'fascism' claim really far fetched?

I would never be hasty to bandy around terms like that, but when Gingrich -who's been a prominent Republican for years- said he wants to fire federal employees who voted for Hillary, and Trump himself is also refusing questions from news outlets who don't report stories all that favourable to him, I can see where those fears come from.

Frank Bullitt

OxfordColours wrote: »

Obamas two inaugerations didn't have thousands of vandals blocking peoples approach to the inaugeration. routes blocked by protesters, air force personnel mocked and blocked

Very unlikely that they stopped hundreds of thousands, that would have made the news, and would require tanks and blocked roads with trucks to stop a reasonable number attending.

People think Trumps success heralds the rise of fascism - yet the only silencing of voices and political opinion is from the anti-trump protesters. The only krystalnacht-style attacking of business is done by anti-trump voters. Imagine ANY of the above happening at Obamas inaugeration - there'd be uproar in the media, with the 'right wing' blamed (and rightly so, thankfully they aren't as scummy)

A classic "im the victim" stance, well played.