President Donald J. Trump

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

First of all the polls themselves.  Are you forgetting how wrong they were throughout the election cycle and how it was pointed out that the samplings were not representative and the questions were couched with a premise that was tantamount to a leading question.  Show me the detailed poll parameters and sampling data and I might change my mind. 

In using the word specious I am perhaps conflating the contents of the subject article with other articles I have read recently and my past experience with CNBC.  After reviewing the article I think a  a better term would be "polling designed with a result in mind."    If you buy that the polls are fair and accurrate fine but I still think they are bogus. 

As far as CNBCs reputation goes, are you really going to tell me that you have not heard utterances by CNBC commentators that lacked circumspection and left out important details. That is the definition of specious.   When I was watching CNBC such comments were made with such regularity as to make me suspect that there was an agenda behind them.  Nothing I've seen lately has changed my mind.

Where does that article mention polls? I think we're on different pages here. My initial and only point is that not many people consider CNBC to be a liberal news outlet. I used to watch it regularly because I do a lot of investing, and never got that impression. If you believe otherwise, I'm not going to argue. I do agree that the investment advice its talking heads dish out is next to worthless.

[Kidnostad3]

Where does that article mention polls? I think we're on different pages here. My initial and only point is that not many people consider CNBC to be a liberal news outlet. I used to watch it regularly because I do a lot of investing, and never got that impression. If you believe otherwise, I'm not going to argue. I do agree that the investment advice its talking heads dish out is next to worthless.

The poll was cited in a CNBC article posted by SEGUNDUS within the last five days. 

I don't have time to look it up since we're on our way out the door.  If you can't find it I'll give you the identifying info tomorrow.


I didn't say that CNBC was necessarily leftist in its bias but that they don't get things right a lot and that they promulgated the results of polls that are at the very least suspect without offering comment as to the pollsters track record for bias and inaccuracy when it comes to Trump.  Lazy journalism.

[SredniVashtar]

Where does that article mention polls? I think we're on different pages here. My initial and only point is that not many people consider CNBC to be a liberal news outlet. I used to watch it regularly because I do a lot of investing, and never got that impression. If you believe otherwise, I'm not going to argue. I do agree that the investment advice its talking heads dish out is next to worthless.

You're definitely on different pages, because this idiot hasn't read a book that doesn't have lift-up flaps. He's one of those people who has a victim mentality when it comes to Trump, and nothing you can say will change his mind.

[Jackstar]

a victim mentality when it comes to Drumpf

Utterly devoid of any coherent or concrete meaning. Bravo.

[SredniVashtar]

Ask yourself where the Ds would be without the inner city voter. 

You can say 'black people'. We know what you mean.

Living the squalid one-party Socialist dream in our big cities, run 100% by the 'Progressives'' for going on 60 years now.  What percentage are some combination of the following:  lacking opportunity, poorly educated, unmotivated, entitled, living off handouts, addicted, in poor health, violent, unemployable, in jail or on parole...

Do you just run on like this until you wind down? If you're suggesting that Trump and his cohorts are going to invest in education, for example, then I'd say 'have at it' but that's obviously not what will happen, is it? They feed people like you - via talk radio - some pablum about the free market and you lap it up, for reasons best known to yourself. They aren't interested in investment because all they want is a quick fix that looks  good on the news. Laissez-faire has been tried - in fact it was the dominant ethos behind the industrial revolution - and the result was widespread social unrest. Just removing the safety net and letting God sort 'em out will never work. Although that's not what you want anyway, of course.

Yet they keep voting for those who've created the conditions they live in. 

Your faith in capitalism as a universal panacea is akin to a religious belief, and has about as much validity in the real world.

But let's ignore all that and create an ignorant straw-man who supposedly represents all Trump voters.  Amazing.

You're not unintelligent, but you're never interested in any viewpoint that isn't  your own, which makes you somewhat tiresome to discuss things with. These endless swivel-eyed rants of yours don't impress me very much, and you're far  too dependent on right-wing cliche for my liking. I don't think All Trump voters are ignorant morons, but he certainly has the ignorant moron vote pretty well sewn up at the moment. I see the current enthusiasm for Trump as emblematic of a curious paradox about America - that a supposedly proud republic constantly longs for a quasi-monarchical authority figure to solve their problems for them.

[21st Century Man]

I see the current enthusiasm for Trump as emblematic of a curious paradox about America - that a supposedly proud republic constantly longs for a quasi-monarchical authority figure to solve their problems for them.

Like the one we have had for the last 8 years?

[Jackstar]

that's obviously not what will happen, is it?

Do I even need to point out, that's just your prognostication? You're like Chicken Little on PCP. Listen, the sky already done did fell--stfu and do something cogent already.

Your faith in capitalism as a universal panacea is akin to a religious belief, and has about as much validity in the real world.

I'm contractually obligated to disagree with you, so I'll just point out that this is little more than simply your opinion and move on.

I see the current enthusiasm for Drumpf as emblematic of a curious paradox about America

How can one see it beyond simply a huge heaving sigh of relief that at least Bill Clinton doesn't have a house key again?


You overthink this shit in a frenetic, spastic attempt to appear clever. Are you aware of that? At least you can spell.

Utterly devoid of any coherent or concrete meaning. Bravo.

Well, fuck me, I'm a prognosticator as well.

[Yorkshire pud]

Like the one we have had for the last 8 years?

Well he wasn't that much an authoritarian. He didn't steal your guns or have you interned as was feared, (yes, I know not by you).

A real full on kick ass monarch would have done both and worse. Our Brenda is a benign monarch, but by all accounts she doesn't suffer fools, which must have been difficult with the audiences with Blair. It makes SV and I laugh at how much unfettered brutality she is supposed to wield on the population. And apparently how the population throws themselves on the ground when she drives past is how we live day to day... 

[Jackstar]

[albrecht]

Well he wasn't that much an authoritarian. He didn't steal your guns or have you interned as was feared, (yes, I know not by you).

It aint over yet. Just these past weeks he had seized millions of acres, banned offshore drilling in many good regions, granted pardons to criminals, and is likely looking to grant more amnesty to illegals, pardons, and who knows how many other regulations. Over the course of his career he has done much by Executive fiat: releasing terrorists, sending millions in blackmail payments to Iran, drone attacks, granting amnesty to illegals, seizing land, entering us into "warming" treaties without Congressional assent, and so many regulations it is mind-boggling.

[Yorkshire pud]

It aint over yet. Just these past weeks he had seized millions of acres, banned offshore drilling in many good regions, granted pardons to criminals, and is likely looking to grant more amnesty to illegals, pardons, and who knows how many other regulations. Over the course of his career he has done much by Executive fiat: releasing terrorists, sending millions in blackmail payments to Iran, drone attacks, granting amnesty to illegals, seizing land, entering us into "warming" treaties without Congressional assent, and so many regulations it is mind-boggling.

Well offshore drilling in places that are wilderness and/or natural habitats to animals or flora is no bad thing. The human has already raped most of the planet, its time to say no more. But hey, I'm a fucking liberal who wants my son and any children he has to enjoy whatever is left of the cess pit we're going to leave.

[21st Century Man]

Well he wasn't that much an authoritarian. He didn't steal your guns or have you interned as was feared, (yes, I know not by you).

A real full on kick ass monarch would have done both and worse. Our Brenda is a benign monarch, but by all accounts she doesn't suffer fools, which must have been difficult with the audiences with Blair. It makes SV and I laugh at how much unfettered brutality she is supposed to wield on the population. And apparently how the population throws themselves on the ground when she drives past is how we live day to day... 

Not much of an authoritarian.  Oh really?  He has made it a point to say we must accept illegal immigration and does everything he can to increase the flow of illegals into this country.  His health care bill passes and is made law with no bipartisan support.  He floods the courts and government bureaucracies with recess appointments of his liberal hack friends.  He takes away millions of acres from the states and designates them as national monuments not because they are national treasures but to "protect" the environment.  He tells a bunch of nuns that they must provide contraceptive health care to everybody on their insurance plans.  I could go on and on but yeah he's not authoritarian.  lol.  Whatever.

[Yorkshire pud]

Not much of an authoritarian.  Oh really?  He has made it a point to say we must accept illegal immigration and does everything he can to increase the flow of illegals into this country.  His health care bill passes and is made law with no bipartisan support.  He floods the courts and government bureaucracies with recess appointments of his liberal hack friends.  He takes away millions of acres from the states and designates them as national monuments not because they are national treasures but to "protect" the environment.  He tells a bunch of nuns that they must provide contraceptive health care to everybody on their insurance plans.  I could go on and on but yeah he's not authoritarian.  lol.  Whatever.

What is the problem with protecting the environment and contraception? I though one of the issues was unwanted pregnancies? Or does the Catholic church have a pass when it comes to instilling indocrination that literally kills women every day because they're hidebound to the Vatican?

[Jackstar]

What is the problem with protecting the environment and contraception?

They weren't.

[21st Century Man]

What is the problem with protecting the environment and contraception? I though one of the issues was unwanted pregnancies? Or do Catho!ics have a pass when it comes to instilling indocrination that literally kills women every day because they're hidebound to the Vatican?

If the Little Sisters of the Poor don't want to provide health care contraceptives to their employees then they should have that right.  It is part of their faith. Who are we to butt in and tell them what to do?  Go to the fucking pharmacy and pay for your own condoms out of your money. As for protecting the environment, he took the land away from the states and put it under federal protection.  I guarandamntee you that those areas were not targeted for development. No one wants to develop those areas so there was no need to protect.  The only thing the land is good for is cattle grazing and such.

[Route 66]

Actually he has deported far more illegals and issued far fewer executive orders than previous presidents.  Far from perfect, but recall the fall 2008 economic meltdown compared to where we are today.  He served with class and dignity, and without a major scandal.  Virtually every president issues questionable pardons,etc, at the end of their term...

[21st Century Man]

Actually he has deported far more illegals and issued far fewer executive orders than previous presidents.  Far from perfect, but recall the fall 2008 economic meltdown compared to where we are today.  He served with class and dignity, and without a major scandal.  Virtually every president issues questionable pardons,etc, at the end of their term...

Tell that to the Border Patrol.  You must be smoking some good stuff.  :

[SredniVashtar]

Not much of an authoritarian.  Oh really?  He has made it a point to say we must accept illegal immigration and does everything he can to increase the flow of illegals into this country.  His health care bill passes and is made law with no bipartisan support.  He floods the courts and government bureaucracies with recess appointments of his liberal hack friends.  He takes away millions of acres from the states and designates them as national monuments not because they are national treasures but to "protect" the environment.  He tells a bunch of nuns that they must provide contraceptive health care to everybody on their insurance plans.  I could go on and on but yeah he's not authoritarian.  lol.  Whatever.

Take a look at the numbers that were deported under Obama's watch and tell me he's soft on illegal immigration. In the political climate over there, bipartisan support for most things is all but impossible, that's not his fault. As for taking away land from states who can't be trusted not to piss it away for the sake of a few bucks, well HOW DARE HE? If it was up to you I guess you'd just ransom the future of coming generations. As for the nuns,  yeah, they can swallow their religious bullshit for the greater good.

None of the things you adduced is remotely authoritarian. People who live in genuinely authoritarian countries would laugh at you and your sheltered existence.

[21st Century Man]

Take a look at the numbers that were deported under Obama's watch and tell me he's soft on illegal immigration. In the political climate over there, bipartisan support for most things is all but impossible, that's not his fault. As for taking away land from states who can't be trusted not to piss it away for the sake of a few bucks, well HOW DARE HE? If it was up to you I guess you'd just ransom the future of coming generations. As for the nuns,  yeah, they can swallow their religious bullshit for the greater good.

None of the things you adduced is remotely authoritarian. People who live in genuinely authoritarian countries would laugh at you and your sheltered existence.

LOL.  I'm going to hold you to that when you start bitching about Trump again.

[SredniVashtar]

If the Little Sisters of the Poor don't want to provide health care contraceptives to their employees then they should have that right.  It is part of their faith.

They have the right to believe what they like, not to impose the consequences of those beliefs on others. You're supposed to be a modern industrial society, not some bloody medieval dunghill answerable to the sky fairies.

[21st Century Man]

They have the right to believe what they like, not to impose the consequences of those beliefs on others. You're supposed to be a modern industrial society, not some bloody medieval dunghill answerable to the sky fairies.

Hey, if you work for certain people, you should be respectful of their beliefs.  They run the business not the employees.  Go to Wal-mart and buy your own fucking condoms, for Christ's sake.   It's not like they cost a lot.  As a matter of fact, let the people pay for their own contraceptives if they want to screw around.  That shouldn't be the government's business at all.

[21st Century Man]

What a bunch of pansies.  Some more names to avoid at the cinema multiplex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTYidWBC8-4

[SredniVashtar]

Hey, if you work for certain people, you should be respectful of their beliefs.  They run the business not the employees.  Go to Wal-mart and buy your own fucking condoms, for Christ's sake.   It's not like they cost a lot.  As a matter of fact, let the people pay for their own contraceptives if they want to screw around.  That shouldn't be the government's business at all.

As long as you are doing your job and not bringing the business into disrepute they don't have any right to interfere in the lives of their employees. This sort of creeping authoritarianism can work its way into other areas of life too. It's the principle that's at stake, not the details of a particular case. If you start privileging people's  beliefs in that way then you'd be obliged to respect anyone's crazy ideas. We give far too much respect to religion simply because it's always been there, not because it has any justification in fact.

[21st Century Man]

As long as you are doing your job and not bringing the business into disrepute they don't have any right to interfere in the lives of their employees. This sort of creeping authoritarianism can work its way into other areas of life too. It's the principle that's at stake, not the details of a particular case. If you start privileging people's  beliefs in that way then you'd be obliged to respect anyone's crazy ideas. We give far too much respect to religion simply because it's always been there, not because it has any justification in fact.

Up until modern times, it has always been the employers who set up the rules regarding how they run their business and what they will provide.  You can choose not to work there if you don't like their rules. It is called freedom.  I frankly don't want the government telling people how to run their private businesses.  It is one thing if a business is abusing their employees then the government should butt in but otherwise, butt out. 

[SredniVashtar]

Up until modern times, it has always been the employers who set up the rules regarding how they run their business and what they will provide.  You can choose not to work there if you don't like their rules. It is called freedom.  I frankly don't want the government telling people how to run their private businesses.  It is one thing if a business is abusing their employees then the government should butt in but otherwise, butt out.

People like you love to quote the Constitution like a religious text. Well, freedom of religion necessarily implies freedom from religion. If you don't like it then you can move somewhere else - that's called freedom too.

[21st Century Man]

People like you love to quote the Constitution like a religious text. Well, freedom of religion necessarily implies freedom from religion. If you don't like it then you can move somewhere else - that's called freedom too.

LOL.  That's why our founders insisted on prayer being said before every session of our Congress.  That's just another thing you are completely wrong about.  I suggest you go back to your textbooks.

[SredniVashtar]

LOL.  That's why our founders insisted on prayer being said before every session of our Congress.  That's just another thing you are completely wrong about.  I suggest you go back to your textbooks.

Show me where it says you don't have freedom of religion, otherwise I'll conclude you are full of shit. A meaningless formula like that isn't the same thing, and you know it. Or you ought to.

[21st Century Man]

Show me where it says you don't have freedom of religion, otherwise I'll conclude you are full of shit. A meaningless formula like that isn't the same thing, and you know it. Or you ought to.

We have freedom of religion but not freedom from religion.  That clause was put in because we did not want to set up a state religion like you have in the UK.  It did not mean that our government should be stripped of religious beliefs.  Standards and practices of our early government verify this.  It is only within the last 50 years or so that atheists have been having hissy fits over any trace of religion in our schools and offices.  Of course what they practice is also a religion unto itself.  There are exceptions to that of course.  Not every atheist is maniacal in their beliefs.

[SredniVashtar]

We have freedom of religion but not freedom from religion.  That clause was put in because we did not want to set up a state religion like you have in the UK.  It did not mean that our government should be stripped of religious beliefs.  Standards and practices of our early government verify this.  It is only within the last 50 years or so that atheists have been having hissy fits over any trace of religion in our schools and offices.  Of course what they practice is also a religion unto itself.  There are exceptions to that of course.  Not every atheist is maniacal in their beliefs.

Atheism isn't a religion, and it doesn't claim to be. It just says that religious beliefs can't be proved objectively. I'd rather that than pretend that there's a mythical being that people have to take notice of. And, what's worse, everyone has to take notice of, whether they believe or not.

The point of freedom of religion is that it protects everyone, whether you want to believe or not. Otherwise  you could have a situation where a Muslim employer mandates that all his employees fast for Ramadan, or some such nonsense. Which is where this would lead in the end.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hey, if you work for certain people, you should be respectful of their beliefs. 

How so? Respect is earned, not given as a right. No religion in my view deserves to be respected of itself. That isn't to say certain people irrespective of their beliefs can't be respected, but that is an individual's prerogative.

They run the business not the employees.  Go to Wal-mart and buy your own fucking condoms, for Christ's sake.   It's not like they cost a lot.  As a matter of fact, let the people pay for their own contraceptives if they want to screw around.  That shouldn't be the government's business at all.

Neither is it the Catholic church's right to indoctrinate some primative dictat. Because of that indoctrination though, millions live in abject poverty, scared to death of being cast aside or burn in hell because some twat in a mitre says that the bible doesn't approve. All the more ironic when said twat in a mitre is supposed to be celibate and has zero understanding of the economic, physical strain on a woman and social costs of child birth.