|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 13 2019 23:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty. Oh? “Any way you cut it,” you say? And how about those YouGov polls that had him at 39% and 40% recently? Maybe rather than cherrypicking polls that support your point, we should try making a weighted average of all the polls and look at that? This is silly. Maybe in the past you could quote a couple polls and count on people to not look up any other polls and take your word for the trend, but these days it’s pretty easy to flip over to 538 and see his approval basically hasn’t moved at all. Went down to ~39% during the shutdown, back up to ~42.5% right after. We’re sitting at 42.1% now. I suppose this is where the conversation moves to you thinking 538 is biased, but before we leave can we pause and note how “any way you cut it” is simply untrue?
I think you made his point for him.
his approval basically hasn’t moved at all
After 3 years of non-stop anti-Trump media his favorables are actually UP from the day he was elected.
|
On April 13 2019 16:42 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 13:52 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 09:38 m4ini wrote:Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. This comes up time and time again. It's bullshit. I would give you the benefit of the doubt if it were just about the Investigation, sure. The majority of the media is simply reporting on what he's doing, and more importantly, what he's tweeting. Then he goes ahead and calls it "fake news". He has done jack shit to push back. In fact, i don't think you actually know what "pushing back" means. Crying like a little bitch about how unfair everyone is because you're "the best president this country ever had" isn't pushing back. It's being a bitch. If media reports on yet another dipshit moment of his on twitter, and he'd come out clarifying that he fucked up but it's sad that media has to milk it so much, that's pushing back. Being a whiny, petty little manchild is not that. Like, not even remotely. My, my. It sounds like you don’t like it. You’re probably used to conservatives just sitting there and sucking it up when we’re called racist, sexist, bigots who want to send grannie off the cliff and keep minorities down. This is fairly typical of leftists that think their more absurd accusations are plain facts. It tells a lot if someone who thinks who has it figured out calls someone conservative "leftist" because he disagrees with the views of his lord and saviour. I'll be honest here, i might sound like "i don't like it", apart from being patently untrue (not that this would matter to you, never has as we know) - you sound like a moron. Every single time you make blatantly bullshit arguments like that. Absurd accusations like, hm.. like what? Just on this page, someone reporting that Trump felt it was necessary to point out that he now has the biggest building after 9/11. On 9/11. Or how about arguing that "nobody knew how hard healthcare is"? Or wait, how about when he literally called "any negative poll fake news"? Yeah, he stuck it to "them", didn't he. With eloquence. Another good example would be when he called media dishonest for calling out the vulgarity of him saying that HRC got "schlonged" by arguing that "he meant "beaten badly". That's the usual concept. He says something outrageously retarded, "the media" calls him out on it, and then he calls them fake news or dishonest by arguing that "he didn't mean what he said, but something else". Here's your problem, or at this point, probably your only "lifeline". There was a lot of bullshit/hysteria in regards to the russia investigation. That's it. Everything else is usually reports on something objectively dumb that he says, or does, or tweets. These are things on tape, on his twitter feed, or simply objectively stupid. And the worst part, you absolutely know it. Show nested quote +Did I say he never misses? Did I make an absolute statement or a comparative? No, you implied it by arguing that he aggressively pushes back "on false media narratives". And in fact, you did it here again: you argue that you didn't say "he never misses". The reality is, 95 out of a 100 times he doesn't hit. Put it this way, if you need 150 rounds to hit a target once, then you're not a good shooter.
I note your vehemence, but this is not the forum that I can respond in kind.
“It’s bullshit” “he’s done jack shit” “crying like a little bitch” “it’s being a bitch” “another dipshit moment” “disagrees with the views of his Lord and savior” “patently untrue not that it matters for you, never has as we know” “you sound like a moron” “every time you make blatantly bullshit arguments like that” “retarded”.
I will be banned for responding with the vigor you display, and I have been banned in the past for doing far less across many posts. I wish this was the place to tolerate right-left at this level, but I know otherwise. Me and the mods have had PMs regarding this. So, sorry, but your vigorous disagreement is noted but must be left unanswered.
|
On April 13 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 23:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2019 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty. Oh? “Any way you cut it,” you say? And how about those YouGov polls that had him at 39% and 40% recently? Maybe rather than cherrypicking polls that support your point, we should try making a weighted average of all the polls and look at that? This is silly. Maybe in the past you could quote a couple polls and count on people to not look up any other polls and take your word for the trend, but these days it’s pretty easy to flip over to 538 and see his approval basically hasn’t moved at all. Went down to ~39% during the shutdown, back up to ~42.5% right after. We’re sitting at 42.1% now. I suppose this is where the conversation moves to you thinking 538 is biased, but before we leave can we pause and note how “any way you cut it” is simply untrue? I think you made his point for him. After 3 years of non-stop anti-Trump media his favorables are actually UP from the day he was elected. Being barely above the lowest point you can go isn't an accomplishment.
To many Republicans who love him regardless of what happens because he is a Republican means his approval can only get so low.
|
On April 13 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 23:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2019 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty. Oh? “Any way you cut it,” you say? And how about those YouGov polls that had him at 39% and 40% recently? Maybe rather than cherrypicking polls that support your point, we should try making a weighted average of all the polls and look at that? This is silly. Maybe in the past you could quote a couple polls and count on people to not look up any other polls and take your word for the trend, but these days it’s pretty easy to flip over to 538 and see his approval basically hasn’t moved at all. Went down to ~39% during the shutdown, back up to ~42.5% right after. We’re sitting at 42.1% now. I suppose this is where the conversation moves to you thinking 538 is biased, but before we leave can we pause and note how “any way you cut it” is simply untrue? I think you made his point for him. After 3 years of non-stop anti-Trump media his favorables are actually UP from the day he was elected.
How exactly are "up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty" and "UP from the day he was elected" the same point?
|
On April 13 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 23:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2019 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty. Oh? “Any way you cut it,” you say? And how about those YouGov polls that had him at 39% and 40% recently? Maybe rather than cherrypicking polls that support your point, we should try making a weighted average of all the polls and look at that? This is silly. Maybe in the past you could quote a couple polls and count on people to not look up any other polls and take your word for the trend, but these days it’s pretty easy to flip over to 538 and see his approval basically hasn’t moved at all. Went down to ~39% during the shutdown, back up to ~42.5% right after. We’re sitting at 42.1% now. I suppose this is where the conversation moves to you thinking 538 is biased, but before we leave can we pause and note how “any way you cut it” is simply untrue? I think you made his point for him. After 3 years of non-stop anti-Trump media his favorables are actually UP from the day he was elected.
That’s fine, his approval hasn’t moved much and that’s weird considering how polarizing his presidency has been. No disputes there.
But that wasn’t xDaunt’s point. His point was:
Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty.
This is patently untrue.
|
Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about.
Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats.
The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall.
|
On April 14 2019 00:07 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 23:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2019 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty. Oh? “Any way you cut it,” you say? And how about those YouGov polls that had him at 39% and 40% recently? Maybe rather than cherrypicking polls that support your point, we should try making a weighted average of all the polls and look at that? This is silly. Maybe in the past you could quote a couple polls and count on people to not look up any other polls and take your word for the trend, but these days it’s pretty easy to flip over to 538 and see his approval basically hasn’t moved at all. Went down to ~39% during the shutdown, back up to ~42.5% right after. We’re sitting at 42.1% now. I suppose this is where the conversation moves to you thinking 538 is biased, but before we leave can we pause and note how “any way you cut it” is simply untrue? I think you made his point for him. his approval basically hasn’t moved at all After 3 years of non-stop anti-Trump media his favorables are actually UP from the day he was elected. That’s fine, his approval hasn’t moved much and that’s weird considering how polarizing his presidency has been. No disputes there. Its not weird when you recognise the floor in his approval rating is tied to Republicans supporting their man regardless of what he does. And he can barely stay above that.
|
On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Show nested quote +Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall. Missing your shot isn't as big a deal when the other side gives you a new shot several times a week.
Also as many have repeatedly said. Its premature to call that the Democrats missed. Lets see what the report actually says first.
Trump getting impeached was never happening anyway because the Republicans can't/won't go against him.
Indictment of Trump himself was also highly unlikely.
Barr thought the evidence doesn't rise to the level needed to indict, which is easy since Barr is on record as saying it can never get high enough.
That doesn't mean that nothing was found.
|
On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Show nested quote +Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall.
But virtually no polling movement since the Barr letter doesn’t support that point. Quite the opposite. If the public is outraged they’ve been lied to about Russia, and now they’re going to support Trump in droves, why don’t the polls reflect it?
It reminds me of #WalkAway last year. Pro-Trump people constructing a narrative about what’s happening in public opinion that they think will embolden Republicans and terrify Democrats, and then preaching it like the gospel far and wide. Problem is, public opinion is an empirical, measurable thing, and the evidence isn’t in their favor.
Edit: typo
Edit2: Also, welcome back! I missed your perspective on things.
|
On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Show nested quote +Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall.
No, what triggered that was Plansix mentioning Trump bragging about his current approval rating. The claim that Christian contested was not directly related to xDaunt making the solid point that water is wet in a tangential previous discussion with Wombat.
E: phrasing
|
On April 14 2019 00:04 Danglars wrote:
I will be banned for responding with the vigor you display, and I have been banned in the past for doing far less across many posts.
Please, don't sell yourself short. Most of us know you don't need vulgarities or expletives to do what you do. In fact, you're doing it again now. It's so hard to be you.
|
On April 14 2019 00:21 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall. But virtually no polling movement since the Barr letter doesn’t support that point. Quite the opposite. If the public is outraged they’ve been lied to about Russia, and now they’re going to support Trump in droves, why don’t the polls reflect it? It reminds me of #WalkAway last year. Pro-Trump people constructing a narrative about what’s happening in public opinion that they think will embolden Republicans and terrify Democrats, and then preaching it like the gospel far and wide. Problem is, public opinion is an empirical, measurable thing, and the evidence isn’t in their favor. Edit: typo Edit2: Also, welcome back! I missed your perspective on things.
The point is that 3 years of CONSTANT focus on Trump and negative stories daily (you literally can't go a page even here without Trump and his supporters being beclowned) has done nothing to hurt his favorables.
Mueller was the big finish and it flopped. I know some people are keeping up hope as long as they can, but spending the next year like the last 3 is the surest way to lose 2020 and that's what this is really about.
|
On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Show nested quote +Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall.
I've commented on this exact thing near the start of the investigation. Historically, it just doesn't seem true that missing a shot has political ramifications. Republicans faced almost no meaningful political backlash when they "missed" on Benghazi, emailgate, or birtherism. Rather, they reaped huge political dividends during the investigations, and never paid any back afterwards. How is Trump's investigation any different?
|
On April 14 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 00:21 ChristianS wrote:On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall. But virtually no polling movement since the Barr letter doesn’t support that point. Quite the opposite. If the public is outraged they’ve been lied to about Russia, and now they’re going to support Trump in droves, why don’t the polls reflect it? It reminds me of #WalkAway last year. Pro-Trump people constructing a narrative about what’s happening in public opinion that they think will embolden Republicans and terrify Democrats, and then preaching it like the gospel far and wide. Problem is, public opinion is an empirical, measurable thing, and the evidence isn’t in their favor. Edit: typo Edit2: Also, welcome back! I missed your perspective on things. The point is that 3 years of CONSTANT focus on Trump and negative stories daily (you literally can't go a page even here without Trump and his supporters being beclowned) has done nothing to hurt his favorables. Mueller was the big finish and it flopped. I know some people are keeping up hope as long as they can, but spending the next year like the last 3 is the surest way to lose 2020 and that's what this is really about.
To be fair, Trump isn't just getting the attention because of the investigation. Mueller submitting his report doesn't suddenly make Trump stop being an awful president who encourages the worst out of other awful people, and it doesn't stop him being a constant test on the strength of our institutions in holding back a galaxy-sized narcissist. Most of us aren't sitting here waiting for the Mueller report to say something it never will. I made my peace a while ago that impeachment isn't going to happen, and that the next election is the best shot we have. I don't see many others saying much different.
Continuing to call out the bullshit won't hurt their numbers much, but plainly it isn't helping either. If Trump wins in 2020, it's going to be because of a host of other problems.
|
On April 14 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 00:21 ChristianS wrote:On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall. But virtually no polling movement since the Barr letter doesn’t support that point. Quite the opposite. If the public is outraged they’ve been lied to about Russia, and now they’re going to support Trump in droves, why don’t the polls reflect it? It reminds me of #WalkAway last year. Pro-Trump people constructing a narrative about what’s happening in public opinion that they think will embolden Republicans and terrify Democrats, and then preaching it like the gospel far and wide. Problem is, public opinion is an empirical, measurable thing, and the evidence isn’t in their favor. Edit: typo Edit2: Also, welcome back! I missed your perspective on things. The point is that 3 years of CONSTANT focus on Trump and negative stories daily (you literally can't go a page even here without Trump and his supporters being beclowned) has done nothing to hurt his favorables. Mueller was the big finish and it flopped. I know some people are keeping up hope as long as they can, but spending the next year like the last 3 is the surest way to lose 2020 and that's what this is really about.
If the claim is “more Russia investigation won’t win Dems 2020,” sure, I’ll agree with that. But if the claim is “voters feel lied to about Russia so they’re gonna vote Republican,” I haven’t seen any evidence of it. The former seems more like what you mean, the latter seems more like what xDaunt means.
|
On April 14 2019 00:35 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 00:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's go back to what triggered this instead of focusing on what you're right about. Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not.
Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats. The bold is the meat of the point. He obviously exaggerated, but the point he's making is solid and far more important than whether Trump is at term highs, record highs, or just high on adderall. I've commented on this exact thing near the start of the investigation. Historically, it just doesn't seem true that missing a shot has political ramifications. Republicans faced almost no meaningful political backlash when they "missed" on Benghazi, emailgate, or birtherism. Rather, they reaped huge political dividends during the investigations, and never paid any back afterwards. How is Trump's investigation any different?
I think I can answer all of the responses best with this one.
First, despite the many similarities, Democrats and Republicans don't vote in the same ways. That Republicans missing didn't hurt them doesn't transfer to Democrats (it's most closely mirrored by older Dems though)
The ramification is that people are tuning out the media. Maddow's numbers plunged after the Barr memo is one manifestation.
Younger voters (Dem's bread and butter for surges of new voters in their favor) couldn't care less about the last 3 years of Russia coverage. Only to find out they couldn't nail him after talking about how they finally got him week in and week out. It takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to keep watching/reading those sources. A type of political dedication younger voters generally don't have.
That's not much of a problem for Republicans, but for Dems that's millions of voters that aren't going to show up for them like in 2016.
The easiest negative impact one can see is that Trump's still more popular than Democrats. Another issue is instead of spending the last 3 years driving home medicare for all (as was suggested at the time) they've focused on Russia for nothing in political traction
I mean there's more but I think that's a good start.
|
On April 13 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:After 3 years of non-stop anti-Trump media his favorables are actually UP from the day he was elected.
You're misreading this meta poll. Its started from when he announced his run. He was sworn Into office in January 2017, hes only been in office for 2 years.
Hes still down from when he was elected and sworn in that period of time was his highest approval ratings.
|
On April 14 2019 01:07 semantics wrote:You're misreading this meta poll. Its started from when he announced his run. He was sworn Into office in January 2017, hes only been in office for 2 years. Hes still down from when he was elected and sworn in that period of time was his highest approval ratings.
I think you're misreading my comment and/or the poll. Our election was on Nov 8 2016. On that date (and early voting days preceding) his favorables were in the high 30's.
Point being, he's liked enough to win, he's literally done it with worse favorables.
|
Fair enough I read that as when he's been the president.
Still not much to say when you're starting essentially at the bottom. You're talking about an approval raiting starting from about where Jimmy Carter and George Bush left office.
|
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment-of-julian-assange-is-a-threat-to-journalism
Oh look Plansix, someone in the New Yorker makes a strong case that the indictment of Assange is a threat to "legitimate journalistic practices":
As numerous media watchdogs and civil-rights groups have already pointed out, they amount to a dangerous attack on the freedom of the press and on efforts by whistle-blowers to alert the public of the actions of powerful institutions, including the U.S. government.
In explaining the charges against Assange, the indictment’s “manners and means of the conspiracy” section describes many actions that are clearly legitimate journalistic practices, such as using encrypted messages, cultivating sources, and encouraging those sources to provide more information. It cites a text exchange in which Manning told Assange, “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left,” and Assange replied, “Curious eyes never run dry in my experience.” If that’s part of a crime, the authorities might have to start building more jails to hold reporters.
My personal view is that Assange might have gone nutty, and might have been one of several reasons that overdetermined the 2016 election in favor of Trump, and might be a bit egotistical, and might be a bit personally offensive, but it's not like you can't find some or all of those traits in other "journalists." Whether or not you are committed to calling Assange a journalist, he clearly cherished freedom of the press and government accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
