60 Percent Disapproval Record
According to Gallup. Perhaps he can beat Bush's all time record of 71 percent disapproval record. Looks like he's on his way.
shareHere's a good article written by a writer who believes that there should be a strong Republican party, but that they can never be that as long as they support trumpf:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/he-had-no-business-becoming-president_us_593f3a49e4b094fa859f1b43
I like what they did in France. The French were disgusted by both major parties like we are.
A candidate called himself a centrist and created a third party. He won in a landslide. He formed a cabinet from moderates from both main parties. Wow! Both parties joining into a third and now working together.
This weekend, the French are expected to vote in to power his party's candidates for the legislature in a huge landslide election because the French want to give him a mandate to put forth his ideas.
We need moderates in both parties instead of the extremes which work against each other and the public. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening because there is an idiocracy which is duped very easily.
The thing is, the french have had firsthand experience of what it's like to live under a dictatorship (when Nazi invaded france) so they weren't fooled by Le Pen's rhetoric. Here's a good article with the author taking some republicans to task about not really standing up in their own conviction:
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article153492734.html
During the last French presidential debate, Le Pen mimicked Trump by name-calling and wrapping herself in the flag. She sounded stupid during the few times when she discussed her policies. Her stupidity shocked the French whereas Trump's stupidity received support from the U.S. idiocracy.
Ryan is a wimp.
The Republicans are running scared because they know that demographics are changing. Minorities tend to vote Democratic. I believe the Muslim ban and deportation aimed at mainly Hispanics is about Republicans trying to hold on to power.
" I believe the Muslim ban and deportation aimed at mainly Hispanics is about Republicans trying to hold on to power."
I thought there was no illegal voting. muslim ban and deportation would not effect voting because only U.S. citizens can legally vote. Hard to keep all your liberal/leftist/democratic b.s. straight but man this is contradiction to the extreme.
"this is contradiction to the extreme."
No, it's not. An illegal person or dreamer's American-born children can eventually vote. A Muslim from another country can eventually become a citizen and vote or have American children and they vote.
Sure if they go through the process of getting legalized and nationalized citizenship. But look at those statistics, these demographics do not overwhelmingly vote democrat like you suggest. My wife is a legal immigrant and she loves Trump even more than I do.
It is about culture values and not race. You liberals/democrats just love playing the race card. Everything to you is about race/identity/orientation and nothing about what people values are or how their culture shapes those values. its all 'republicans hate non-whites so they are trying to deport all non-whites' Even though there is no evidence of such a thing and plenty to the contrary.
Direct quotes:
"Only 5% of blacks nationwide identify as Republicans."
"Relatively few Hispanics (13%) identify as Republicans."
"...Asians and other races... least likely to identify as Republicans."
"Projections show that the nonwhite proportion of the American adult population will grow in the years ahead. This means that if current partisan allegiance patterns prevail, the size of the Democratic base will be in a better position to grow than will the Republican base."
"The ability of the Republican Party to make inroads among nonwhites has been much discussed...particularly the GOP's efforts to improve on the 13% allegiance that Gallup data show it obtains from Hispanics."
I laughed when Trump wrecked the Republicans Party's multi-year efforts to attract Hispanics to join their party. Still laughing.
Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
If you haven't noticed by now that Republican events are almost 99% white and Democratic events are generally racially diverse than your blind. Watch a Trump rally on TV or Democratic and Republican conventions and events on youtube and really observe the supporters. You can't be so ignorant. I knew this when I was 5.
You are counting all voting trends of all ethnic races and are not distinguishing between natural born citizens that happen to be a specific ethnic group and the trends of voting of immigrants that have become citizens and therefore eligible to vote.
Over the last 50 years the naturalized voting base has become more democratic than republican yes, but not overwhelmingly like your statistics suggest, because those numbers include ALL votes by ethnic group and does not distinguish if they were natural born or naturalized. Statistics can be used manipulatively to sell a narrative and that is what you did.
Besides the voting of Trump saw an increase in Black and Hispanic than previous presidential runs so if anything that shows a potential swing.
Also it is worth noting a large percentage of those that vote democrat do so because they are receiving welfare or some other form of government help that democrats use to suck them in and keep them there. Statistically speaking more blacks and Hispanics use welfare than whites. This is another explanation for why such a voting trend occurs. You should listen/read Larry Elders he explains this stuff extremely well.
The Republican Party is notorious for its racism. Your racist diatribe is an example of why the Republican Party will never be popular among nonwhites.
shareSo I am sexist for not liking the ficitional character Rey and I am racist for not wanting people to get easy hand outs from the government and expect people to work and earn what they get. That about right?
Democrats will never win more of the middle of the country if they assume anyone that has a job and doesn't want to give away their hard earned money are racist.
"Statistics can be used manipulatively to sell a narrative and that is what you did."
"Statistically speaking more blacks and Hispanics..."
do you notice something?
Yes even the statistics I have seen can be manipulated that is why you have to research how the statistics were gathered and see if that holds up against one's experienced reality.
sharelook again.
sharei do. I am always double checking to make sure the information I got was accurate. All the time false information gets put out there and retractions are made. I try to stay on top of these things. Am i perfect? No. but at least I look past the buzzwords and headlines. most of you don't. For example most of the liberals still make the argument unemployment went down under Obama, but still don't know that the labor participation rate also went down. which means that the unemployment went down because many people stopped looking for work.
share"For example most of the liberals still make the argument unemployment went down under Obama, but still don't know that the labor participation rate also went down. which means that the unemployment went down because many people stopped looking for work. "
we were talking about that?
may that as it be. you have to provide reliable links to prove such claims or it does not make any sense to start the argument in the first place.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
I am just giving an example of how statistics can be manipulated to sell a narrative. the above link is from the bureau of labor force statistics, which is a .gov. Of the many questionable sourcing this would be among the least questionable. This graph shows a sharp decline since 2007 that has continued all the way till this year. Now do you need me to explain what the labor force participation rate is, how it is calculated and what it means for the unemployment rate?
I guess if I need to I can give you a crash lesson on basic macro economics.
how about we start with a simple: how to structure an argument. please try to concentrate this time. maybe we make it this time.
step 1:
your argument:_________ (please fill in)
step 2:
Don't rely on fallacies to prove your point. Attacking and mocking your opponent is not a way to argue but a sign you mentally weak and have poor reasoning for your position.
that's actually not a step, it is a footnote. nevertheless it is a bit early for that.
So, back to step 1:
your argument:_________ (please fill in)
No, i am done with you. I have made my position, point and argument clear. You have failed to give a reasonable response and I have lost patients for dealing with particularly unreasonable people.
sharewell, i gave you a chance. obviously you are only interested in rambling all over the place, instead of a proper argument. well, maybe next time.
you wrote alot, which it seems equals "position, point and argument" to some people, which once again points out the problems in our public educational system.
unbelievable. you start halfway through an argument and yet need me to restate the initial argument for your sake.
You are now the third user i have come across that is fucking Donny.
"life does not start and stop at your convenience, you miserable piece of shit" - The Big Lebowski.
and yet you try giving me lessons on how to structure an argument. fucking hypocrite.
what argument?
you never established the most important part, which brings us back to
step 1:
your argument:_________ (please fill in)
good guess in regards to the meta level on my part, btw. ^^
go back to my first response to keelai for nature of the argument I was having. the argument did not begin when you entered the conversation, stupid.
That is why you are fucking Donny. You think the argument stops and starts based on when you entered and left. this is why you failed to be a proper part of the discussion.
Next time don't pick out one response and create a new subject in the middle of others conversation but understand the entire conversation, you fucking dumb ass.
next misconception in regards to arguments:
repition does not strenghten your words.
btw, lack of social skills do not either.
"you fucking dumb ass. "
hahaha. yeah, now i can really take you way more seriously.
The initial argument was about statistics being used manipulatively. so your fake ass comment about me not structuring a argument was total bullshit.
Why would I be civil with you when you are trying to derail an argument and conversation through non-arguments and lies? There is no reason to be civil with a douche.
we are making progress here.
step 1:
your argument: statistics can me used in a misleading way.
Step 2:
further expanding on the subject matter. should include links from reliable sources, that support the initial argument.
I did that too.
Are you one of those people that only pay attention to the very last thing. I provided links to sources and then explained what those sources meant. I actually went above and beyond.
your are so utterly full of shit, i do not even know how to remain sane with you.
Go fuck yourself retard. Don't bother responding to this because I am going to just start trolling you now. You proved too stupid to take seriously.
c'mon sugarplum, we managed to get over the first hurdle, now don't be such a lib dem wussie and get along with the progress.
shareI already finished the argument, you lost when you tried pretending I failed in the structure of the argument when I even filled all your contrived criteria. You are a smelly retard that lives with your mama and got nothing better to do than go on discussion boards, fail to argue properly and then try to use lies to dig yourself out.
you are pathetic.
well, at least it's me to that took half a book before being ready for the first step of a proper argument and then pre-jaculated before even beginning the secomd step. but hey, it takes different strokes.
ok, so you want to change subjects. no problem.
step 1- your argument: "one can lose an argument that his/her opponent did not even start yet to articulate"
i kinda dig this one, since it brings us to a very philosophical level.
Step 2:
further expanding on the subject matter. should include links from reliable sources, that support the initial argument.
You are a smelly poopy head. and you have no feet and and hobble around on stubs. It looks really funny.
I laugh at your misery.
hahaha. nothing left, eh?
shareoh i have plenty left. but i save that for people that are not complete fucking retards.
sharestep 1- your argument: "i have plenty left. but i save that"
Step 2:
further expanding on the subject matter. should include links from reliable sources, that support the initial argument.
[deleted]
interesting. tell me about about the relationship to your father. would you describe it as rather close or would you describe it as distant?
alternative answer:
damn, bill hicks, is that you?
My Father?
" My father, was a drinker, and a fiend. And one night, he goes off crazier than usual. Mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn't like that. Not. One. Bit. So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. He turns to me and says, "Why so serious?" Comes at me with the knife. "WHY SO SERIOUS?" He sticks the blade in my mouth... "Let's put a smile on that face." And... Why So serious?"
you did not take his advice. did you?
shareActually I did because "now I see the funny side. Now I'm always smiling"
sharegood for you. maybe not so good for gotham, but good for you.
shareI don't buy the end of Dark knight. Given that circumstances one or the other ship would blow the other up to save themselves. especially since it was impersonally blowing the other up and not having to see their faces. maybe I would buy it if they had to shot one another becasue then you see them.
sharesorry man, but i haven't seen it in ages. also on my laptop the reply form is getting too small to keep this conversation aup. hahaha. let's take this to the according batman thread.
shareI approve of him100% Sorry if that offends the Hillary fans, but I approve of ANYONE who would become President and would send that lying witch back to Chappaqua or wherever she rests her broomstick. Someone bought a house for her, i.e., someone who got "something" in the exchange.
i like cake
shareJust because you dont like her doesnt mean you have to like him. Hes every bit as corrupt as she is.
shareActually you have a point there. But I detest Hillary SO MUCH that I would have voted for anyone to keep that witch out of the White House. I was never a "yuge" fan of Trump as a businessman, but I simply loathe Hillary so much that I would have voted for ANYONE to keep her OUT of power.
sharewith the result of a tital destruction of our social and educational system?
shareTrump has the power to destroy our social and educational system?
How do you figure that? He can't even keep destructive illegals OUT of the country because the courts keep blocking him. Education should be on a local level. Washington has NO business running school districts.
I detest BIG government and people like Hillary who want to run our lives. If you think Hitlary was good for America, well, I doubt if I can say anything to dissuade you. But I feel deep down in my bones from everything I have read about that manipulative sociopath, she would be a total DISASTER for this country.
Hillary needs to go and do what she does well, become an ambulance chasing lawyer, sell used cars, peddle "Dr. Good" potions out of the back of a van. She needs to be kept far away from government.
I get voting for him over her, but what I can't understand is the people are just defending everything he does. It's like is their football team, and so they can't do anything but go all in.
sharethis is hilarious
shareI suppose I should not have said I am 100% behind everything Trump does. I am not behind ANYbody in government all the way. I am just 100% happy Hillary was denied the office of the Presidency.
Right from the start I had problems with a few of Trump's decisions. But I would have been way unhappier with Mrs. Clinton in office.
The lfp has gone down. I wonder if that has anything to do with an aging population that's been retiring over the past years? But no matter what the reason, the drop is significantly less then the employment rate. So I don't really know what your point is? Also which employment rate are you referring to? There's 6 of them. So which one is it? The only person trying to manipulate statistics is you.
share"The lfp has gone down. I wonder if that has anything to do with an aging population that's been retiring over the past years?"
population increases, elderly staying in the work force longer, and people retiring later all say this statement is rubbish. Unless there was a significant decline in the 16 to 18 year old population that would be joining the work force your point here is utter nonsense because as far as I can tell there has not been a world war or a plague that only affects young adults. so yeah your statement is utter nonsense. this is an example of a fallacy and why you suck at arguing.
"But no matter what the reason, the drop is significantly less then the employment rate."
That is because some people did get jobs. Obama is not lying when he says they created, what was, 2 million jobs. But the part they don't mention is that those were crappy low paying jobs that saw heavy amount of turn around. So the unemployment was not affected by that because as soon as one went out another came in for a short time. unemployment rate does not distinguish between who has the jobs and how long they have them, or what they pay.
The whole point being the statistics were being used manipulatively to sell the narrative that conditions were improving when the reality of the matter was they were bad and still getting worse.
"Also which employment rate are you referring to? There's 6 of them. So which one is it? The only person trying to manipulate statistics is you."
I was referring specifically to how the labor force participation rate works and how if affects the unemployment rate. if you actually paid attention and understood what I was typing you would already know that because I stated that specifically when I brought up the topic. I am manipulating nothing I am giving a lesson on how these statistics work and how one can use them to sell a certain narrative. I was not selling a narrative, I am just stating the facts. More fallacies on your part.
There are 6 different unemployment rates. Not all of them are affected by the lpr. SO its pretty clear you dont have a clue what you are talking about.
Face it, youve been found out as being nothing but a wanker that hates poor people. And no amount of fact twisting is going to change that.
you do not know what the unemployment rate is. there is only 1 unemployment rate. The other aspects are called other things. Like for example the labor participation rate. different things are considered for each part of this but no there are not 6 things called unemployment rate. that is incorrect information on your part.
"Face it, youve been found out as being nothing but a wanker that hates poor people."
that is funny because I am lower middle class and barely qualify for that. I could use government assistance just like everyone in my position. but i also understand how welfare is like a death spiral.
I do not want assistance I just don't want someone getting in my way or taxing me into poverty because I actually work and own property. Also capitalism is an incredible system that has nearly eliminated poverty. is it perfect? of course not, but it is a whole hell of lot better than anything else we have come up with.
Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the facts. I am twisting facts you are just ignoring them.
Key Word - EVENTUALLY
After they've gone through the proper legal channels. And not everyone agrees, crapping out a baby on US soil is enough to justify being a US citizen.