Trump approval poll: 55%

[Peter1469]

55% is high. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb16) Very high during an on-going coup lead by the Deep State and the MSM.



The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2. (see trends (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history)).


Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/daily_updates)).
Questions are growing about the source of top-secret information leaked to the media to hurt the Trump administration. A plurality (47%) of voters believe America’s intelligence agencies have their own political agenda (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/voters_think_u_s_intelligence_agencies_play_politi cs).


Nearly half (48%) also believe most reporters are biased against the president (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/voters_say_media_still_anti_trump). Only 12% think they are biased for Trump, while 31% feel most reporters try to be fair and balanced. Needless to say, Republicans and Democrats strongly disagree in their assessments of the media.


While the president’s refugee freeze is tied up in the courts, the State Department has sped up acceptance of newcomers from the Middle Eastern terrorist havens targeted by the freeze. Most voters think that’s making America less safe (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/most_see_increased_danger_from_new_middle_eastern_ refugees).

If the Deep State can't get the people to bow to them, they may resort to assassination. They will pull a JFK on Trump.

[del]

you left out the illuminati

[Peter1469]

you left out the illuminati

They are above the Deep State. :wink:

[Cigar]

Polls Polls ... who believes in Polls :laugh:

[decedent]

*Checks to see if it's a Rasmussen poll*


*Pretends to be surprised*




*Acting skills are bad... nobody's buying it*





*Goes to acting school*





*Kicked out for inappropriate behavior*

[Ethereal]

you left out the illuminati
Another stellar contribution, as always.

[MMC]

That wouldn't be a smart move in this day and age. It will unleash some opposition forces that can play the same game, while decimating the upper ranks of the deep state.

[MMC]

*Checks to see if it's a Rasmussen poll*


*Pretends to be surprised*




*Acting skills are bad... nobody's buying it*





*Goes to acting school*





*Kicked out for inappropriate behavior*

Where were you when Politico's Morning Consult poll came out.....besides notably absent?

[Subdermal]

Look at all the Lefty cockroaches desperate to bury news that counters their bullshit narrative.

:biglaugh:

[AZ Jim]

As suspected, RASMUSSEN!!!!! Useless,

[Peter1469]

As suspected, RASMUSSEN!!!!! Useless,

You don't like Rasmussen I see.

Your feelings are not material.

[hanger4]

As suspected, RASMUSSEN!!!!! Useless,

It was the second most accurate poll behind the Investor’s Business Daily poll for the 2016 presidential election.

[del]

Another stellar contribution, as always.
thank you- your opinion of me is my lodestar

[AZ Jim]

Gallup has him at 40% Rasmussen is WAY out of line with all the others. It is the only one that has him above 50%. Read 'em and weep.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

[hanger4]

Gallup has him at 40% Rasmussen is WAY ot of line with all the others. It is the only one that has him above 50%. Read 'em and weep.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html


It was the second most accurate poll behind the Investor’s Business Daily poll for the 2016 presidential election.

[del]

and nate silver was in 2012

your point?

[hanger4]

and nate silver was in 2012

your point?

Disqualifying Rasmussen out of hand is silly when they were the second most accurate poll for the 2016 Presidential election.

Thought that was sort of obvious. :geez:

[MisterVeritis]

Disqualifying Rasmussen out of hand is silly when they were the second most accurate poll for the 2016 Presidential election.

Thought that was sort of obvious. :geez:
It just works better if you hold del's hand during the difficult parts.

[del]

Disqualifying Rasmussen out of hand is silly when they were the second most accurate poll for the 2016 Presidential election.

Thought that was sort of obvious. :geez:
no one's dismissing it out of hand.

we look at the other poll numbers, see that rasmussen is off by ~10 points compared to the other polls and then dismiss it as bullshit.

i thought that was glaringly obvious

[MMC]

You don't like Rasmussen I see.

Your feelings are not material.

They liked that Politico Poll until it went against their narrative. Then as usual they ran off without opening their mouths, to much.

Par for the course. Minus the mocking BS they run with.

[hanger4]

no one's dismissing it out of hand.

we look at the other poll numbers, see that rasmussen is off by ~10 points compared to the other polls and then dismiss it as bullshit.

i thought that was glaringly obvious

"no one's dismissing it out of hand."


As suspected, RASMUSSEN!!!!! Useless,

The rest of your post is non sequitur.

[MMC]

Look at all the Lefty cockroaches desperate to bury news that counters their bullshit narrative.

:biglaugh:

Remember now.....they get bolder when the flock has numbers.

[del]

"no one's dismissing it out of hand."



The rest of your post is non sequitur.

can you explain to me your deep insight into the thought processes of other people?

then have someone explain what a non sequitur is to you

[hanger4]

can you explain to me your deep insight into the thought processes of other people?

then have someone explain what a non sequitur is to you

You need to read and comprehend AZ Jim's post;



As suspected, RASMUSSEN!!!!! Useless,

Which dismisses your statement, "no one's dismissing it out of hand." which makes the rest of your post a statement that does not logically follow from the previous statement.

[Bethere]

55% is high. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb16) Very high during an on-going coup lead by the Deep State and the MSM.

High. Very very high.

[MisterVeritis]

Look at all the Lefty cockroaches desperate to bury news that counters their bullshit narrative.

:biglaugh:
Oh yeah? Oh. Yeah! :grin:

[texan]

Polls Polls ... who believes in Polls :laugh:

The dems did in November and December.

[MMC]

You need to read and comprehend AZ Jim's post;




Which dismisses your statement, "no one's dismissing it out of hand." which makes the rest of your post a statement that does not logically follow from the previous statement.


Cmon now Hanger.....it has enough problems comprehending its own reality.

[del]

You need to read and comprehend AZ Jim's post;




Which dismisses your statement, "no one's dismissing it out of hand." which makes the rest of your post a statement that does not logically follow from the previous statement.

you have no idea how jim correctly determined that the rasmussen poll is indeed useless, nor do you know how long the process took, therefore your assertion that he dismissed it out of hand is more rasmussen bullshit.

carry on

[hanger4]

you have no idea how jim correctly determined that the rasmussen poll is indeed useless, nor do you know how long the process took, therefore your assertion that he dismissed it out of hand is more rasmussen bullshit.

carry on

AZ Jim dismissed the poll by Rasmussen, if you want to argue sematics by questioning "out of hand" use a mirror.

[Bethere]

you have no idea how jim correctly determined that the rasmussen poll is indeed useless, nor do you know how long the process took, therefore your assertion that he dismissed it out of hand is more rasmussen bull$#@!.

carry on
Rasmussen is using a likely voter model. Of course, that begs the question, "likely voters for what? What race? What election?"

The methodology is totally dishonest.

[del]

AZ Jim dismissed the poll by Rasmussen, if you want to argue sematics by questioning "out of hand" use a mirror.
the dismissal of the poll was never in question, only your characterization of it as *out of hand*

i thought that was blindingly obvious

backpedal harder

[Common Sense]

Pew has him at 39%.

[Subdermal]

Rasmussen is using a likely voter model. Of course, that begs the question, "likely voters for what? What race? What election?"

The methodology is totally dishonest.

How is it dishonest when you cannot answer the questions you ask?

[MisterVeritis]

you have no idea how jim correctly determined that the rasmussen poll is indeed useless, nor do you know how long the process took, therefore your assertion that he dismissed it out of hand is more rasmussen bullshit.
carry on
Jim doesn't have any idea either.

[del]

Pew has him at 39%.
gallup had him at 41, although that was before his press conference....

[del]

Jim doesn't have any idea either.
stunning rebuttal

run along

[Bethere]

the dismissal of the poll was never in question, only your characterization of it as *out of hand*

i thought that was blindingly obvious

backpedal harder

Those numbers are high. Very very high.

[hanger4]

the dismissal of the poll was never in question, only your characterization of it as *out of hand*

i thought that was blindingly obvious

backpedal harder

How sweet, still stuck on irrelevancy so as to ignore the point.

[NapRover]

Glad to see this, I think he's doing a good job.

[del]

How sweet, still stuck on irrelevancy so as to ignore the point.
you know the words stay after you post them, right?

try harder

[hanger4]

you know the words stay after you post them, right?

try harder

Try harder, why ?? Rasmussen was the second most accurate poll for the 2016 Presidential election.

[del]

Try harder, why ?? Rasmussen was the second most accurate poll for the 2016 Presidential election.

yes, we've covered that.

and hillary had a homebrew server

[Bethere]

yes, we've covered that.

and hillary had a homebrew server
It is impossible to stop someone who is intent on fooling himself.

[Ethereal]

thank you- your opinion of me is my lodestar
I'm sure it's not. But your posting habits don't seem to have changed much even after being punished. There's really only one more step after that. I doubt anyone would miss you.

[Common Sense]

There is one political polling outfit that is clearly partisan. No wonder it's the choice of partisans.

"We're number 2!" is apparently their motto. I also agree that they're shit...

[Ethereal]

no one's dismissing it out of hand.

we look at the other poll numbers, see that rasmussen is off by ~10 points compared to the other polls and then dismiss it as bull$#@!.

i thought that was glaringly obvious
The same polls that predicted Brexit and Trump's election wouldn't happen, no doubt.

[del]

I'm sure it's not. But your posting habits don't seem to have changed much even after being punished. There's really only one more step after that. I doubt anyone would miss you.
your input is highly valued

[del]

The same polls that predicted Brexit and Trump's election wouldn't happen, no doubt.
why don't you research it and let us know?

[Ethereal]

you have no idea how jim correctly determined that the rasmussen poll is indeed useless, nor do you know how long the process took, therefore your assertion that he dismissed it out of hand is more rasmussen bull$#@!.

carry on
"No idea"... right, because it's not like he dismissed it immediately after identifying it as a Rasmussen poll. It's a total mystery how he arrived at that conclusion. And, of course, AZ Jim is known for his deep and insightful commentary and not for his rabid partisanship.

[Ethereal]

your input is highly valued
Again, I don't care if you value my input or not. I don't really value yours either. But the forum has rules, you've been a serial violator of them, and it appears you learned no lessons.

[Common Sense]

"No idea"... right, because it's not like he dismissed it immediately after identifying it as a Rasmussen poll. It's a total mystery how he arrived at that conclusion. And, of course, AZ Jim is known for his deep and insightful commentary and not for his rabid partisanship.
To be fair, Rasmussen is a conservative leaning pollster. Typically polling outlets should be impartial or A political.

[del]

"No idea"... right, because it's not like he dismissed it immediately after identifying it as a Rasmussen poll. It's a total mystery how he arrived at that conclusion. And, of course, AZ Jim is known for his deep and insightful commentary and not for his rabid partisanship.

go reread my responses to the other apologist.

i'm not going to repeat myself.

[del]

Again, I don't care if you value my input or not. I don't really value yours either. But the forum has rules, you've been a serial violator of them, and it appears you learned no lessons.
well then as an exemplar of proper forum behavior, you should report them.

[Ethereal]

why don't you research it and let us know?
Are you trying to suggest they're not the same polls? Or just the usual evasion?

[Ethereal]

To be fair, Rasmussen is a conservative leaning pollster. Typically polling outlets should be impartial or A political.

Have they been more or less accurate than other polls? That's the only question that should matter.

[del]

Are you trying to suggest they're not the same polls? Or just the usual evasion?
i'm suggesting you research them and post your findings.

i'm not particularly interested in them, but you seem to be.

alternatively, don't

[Ethereal]

go reread my responses to the other apologist.

i'm not going to repeat myself.

Nothing you have ever posted is worth reading a second time, I assure you.

And it's quite clear that Hanger was correct in characterizing AZ Jim's dismissal as "out of hand".

You're refusal to acknowledge this is puzzling to say the least.

[del]

Nothing you have ever posted is worth reading a second time, I assure you.

And it's quite clear that Hanger was correct in characterizing AZ Jim's dismissal as "out of hand".

You're refusal to acknowledge this is puzzling to say the least.
it's *your*

you're certainly entitled to your opinion about hanger's mischaracterization of jim's thought processes.

you're welcome

[Ethereal]

well then as an exemplar of proper forum behavior, you should report them.
I will. And I will lobby the other VIPs to deal with you the way you should have been dealt with a long time ago. You're a big reason why this forum is so mired in bickering and trolling.

[Common Sense]

:rollseyes:

[Ethereal]

i'm suggesting you research them and post your findings.

i'm not particularly interested in them, but you seem to be.

alternatively, don't
You're the one who said the Rasmussen poll was inconsistent with "other polls", so either you were referencing a specific set of polls or you were just making things up. If you were referencing a specific set of polls, then you would know if they were the same polls that wrongly predicted Brexit and Trump's election. So which one is it?

[del]

I will. And I will lobby the other VIPs to deal with you the way you should have been dealt with a long time ago. You're a big reason why this forum is so mired in bickering and trolling.
yes, it's all my fault.

perhaps a public flogging would assuage my guilt and shame.

i urge you to advocate for same

[Ethereal]

:rollseyes:

Of course you would roll your eyes. Del is a leftist troll, so you tacitly approve of him.

[Common Sense]

Of course you would roll your eyes. Del is a leftist troll, so you tacitly approve of him.
Sorry, I just don't think you're handling this well...

This isn't the place.

[Ethereal]

yes, it's all my fault.

perhaps a public flogging would assuage my guilt and shame.

i urge you to advocate for same
No, it's not ALL your fault, but you've been trolling this forum aggressively for years. You don't even bother to deny it because you know it's true. You have zero interest in a respectful dialog with anyone who disagrees with you. It's nothing but endless snark and condescension.

[Ethereal]

Sorry, I just don't think you're handling this well...

This isn't the place.

Sorry, but I don't really subscribe to the idea that mods and VIPs should keep their business a secret from the rest of the forum. This isn't the CIA. We can be frank about our opinions with one another and if the position of VIP means anything then it means we should be actively encouraging members to post in good faith, which del does not do. Granted, the post I objected to isn't something I would report, but viewed in the larger context of his contributions over many years, it's just more of the same snark and condescension towards someone who has the audacity to think differently about something.

[del]

No, it's not ALL your fault, but you've been trolling this forum aggressively for years. You don't even bother to deny it because you know it's true. You have zero interest in a respectful dialog with anyone who disagrees with you. It's nothing but endless snark and condescension.

i don't bother to deny it because there's no point in arguing with the closedminded.

there may be some people who would consider your decision to insert yourself into a conversation between hanger and myself for what appears to be the sole purpose of telling me what an asshole troll i am, *aggressive trolling*

quien sabe, eh?

[Common Sense]

Sorry, but I don't really subscribe to the idea that mods and VIPs should keep their business a secret from the rest of the forum. This isn't the CIA. We can be frank about our opinions with one another and if the position of VIP means anything then it means we should be actively encouraging members to post in good faith, which del does not do. Granted, the post I objected to isn't something I would report, but viewed in the larger context of his contributions over many years, it's just more of the same snark and condescension towards someone who has the audacity to think differently about something.

You are not compelled to respond to posters or post you don't like.

This isn't the place to discuss moderation or make threats.

[Ethereal]

What did Pete say that del found so ridiculous? He used the term "deep state" to describe the powerful interest groups who are undermining Trump's presidency. Even Pulitzer prize winning journalists have used this term to describe such groups. So del's snark is not only obnoxious, it's not even based in reality. Most intelligent and honest people can see that (a) there is such a thing as the "deep state" and (b) it's hostile towards Trump. Del's reaction to the use of this term is just more leftist gate-keeping and curating of acceptable opinion. Del doesn't like that term for whatever reason, so he mocks Pete for using it. It's as simple as that.

[Ethereal]

i don't bother to deny it because there's no point in arguing with the closedminded.

there may be some people who would consider your decision to insert yourself into a conversation between hanger and myself for what appears to be the sole purpose of telling me what an $#@! troll i am, *aggressive trolling*

quien sabe, eh?
I inserted myself into the discussion with Hanger and you because you said something that was false. The trolling issue was a result of your first comment in this thread which amounted to nothing more than mocking Pete for using a term you don't personally approve of. Two separate issues.

[Ethereal]

You are not compelled to respond to posters or post you don't like.

This isn't the place to discuss moderation or make threats.

I'm well aware that I'm not compelled to respond to anyone. I choose to respond because it's what I want to do. And I'm not discussing "moderation" or "making threats". I'm merely expressing my opinion about the forum rules and a particular member's long-running refusal to abide by them. I know some people would rather have such discussions in secret, but I don't really see the point. I don't need to hide my opinion from the other members.

[Common Sense]

What did Pete say that del found so ridiculous? He used the term "deep state" to describe the powerful interest groups who are undermining Trump's presidency. Even Pulitzer prize winning journalists have used this term to describe such groups. So del's snark is not only obnoxious, it's not even based in reality. Most intelligent and honest people can see that (a) there is such a thing as the "deep state" and (b) it's hostile towards Trump. Del's reaction to the use of this term is just more leftist gate-keeping and curating of acceptable opinion. Del doesn't like that term for whatever reason, so he mocks Pete for using it. It's as simple as that.

Deep State is a term that the right has recently coopted to mean the media and the so called elites they don't like. It's a term that typically means the military industrial complex and power-brokers.

I scoffed at it as well because it's clear that those who are now using this term are only doing so because they've recently read it at sites like Breitbart who are championing the term. I mock them as well because their sudden use illustrates their transparency.

[Ethereal]

You're the one who said the Rasmussen poll was inconsistent with "other polls", so either you were referencing a specific set of polls or you were just making things up. If you were referencing a specific set of polls, then you would know if they were the same polls that wrongly predicted Brexit and Trump's election. So which one is it?

Any response del?

[Ethereal]

Deep State is a term that the right has recently coopted to mean the media and the so called elites they don't like. It's a term that typically means the military industrial complex and power-brokers.

And what makes you think Pete wasn't referring to the military-industrial complex and power-brokers?


I scoffed at it as well because it's clear that those who are now using this term are only doing so because they've recently read it at sites like Breitbart who are championing the term. I mock them as well because their sudden use illustrates their transparency.

So you know what Pete meant, where he read it, and why he's using that term? Your powers of perception are simply amazing.

[hanger4]

It is impossible to stop someone who is intent on fooling himself.

Hey I explained it to him as best I could, but he continued down Semantics Avenue. :grin:

[Common Sense]

And what makes you think Pete wasn't referring to the military-industrial complex and power-brokers?



So you know what Pete meant, where he read it, and why he's using that term? Your powers of perception are simply amazing.

What does this have to do with this thread?

You seem a bit worked up.

Enjoy.

[Ethereal]

What does this have to do with this thread?

You seem a bit worked up.

Enjoy.

Pete used the term "deep state" in his OP.

Del's first response was to mock Pete for using that term.

Are you starting to see the connection?

[Common Sense]

Pete used the term "deep state" in his OP.

Del's first response was to mock Pete for using that term.

Are you starting to see the connection?
Don't worry, you'll see lots of people saying Deep State soon...you'll figure it out.

[Safety]

What does this have to do with this thread?

You seem a bit worked up.

Enjoy.

Some people take offense any criticism towards their friends, but others are not allowed to do the same.

[Ethereal]

Pew has him at 39%.
They also predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.

[Mister D]

Some people take offense any criticism towards their friends, but others are not allowed to do the same.
Doubtful. It's more likely the fact that del hardly ever engages in any sort of discussion after his "criticism". He appears to have continued that pattern here.

[Ethereal]

Don't worry, you'll see lots of people saying Deep State soon...you'll figure it out.
Leftists are the kings of evasion.

I just answered your question.

Pete used the term in his OP. Del mocked him. You tried to justify Del's response by making assumptions about what Pete meant, where he read the term, and why he said it. Yet you have failed to substantiate those assumptions in anyway. Prove me wrong.

[hanger4]

go reread my responses to the other apologist.

i'm not going to repeat myself.

I have no need to apologize, my point is correct and you're playing semantics in hopes of avoiding said point.

[Common Sense]

They also predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.
So did Rasmussen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/our_final_2016_picks

[Mister D]

Don't worry, you'll see lots of people saying Deep State soon...you'll figure it out.
I think he has it figured out. If I didn't laugh at this place I'd be a little dismayed by the fact that VIPs (persons tasked with raising the level of discussion) approve of del's behavior.

[Ethereal]

Some people take offense any criticism towards their friends, but others are not allowed to do the same.
It has nothing to do with that. I use the term "deep state" as well. That is why I object to del's mockery of it.

[Safety]

i don't bother to deny it because there's no point in arguing with the closedminded.

there may be some people who would consider your decision to insert yourself into a conversation between hanger and myself for what appears to be the sole purpose of telling me what an asshole troll i am, *aggressive trolling*

quien sabe, eh?

In fact, you are doing the correct thing and not engage him, for he is looking for a fight to get you in trouble. Just report it and move on, he has just shown his intentions.

[Ethereal]

So did Rasmussen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/our_final_2016_picks

In other words, they're no better or worse at their jobs than Pew is.

[Common Sense]

Leftists are the kings of evasion.

I just answered your question.

Pete used the term in his OP. Del mocked him. You tried to justify Del's response by making assumptions about what Pete meant, where he read the term, and why he said it. Yet you have failed to substantiate those assumptions in anyway. Prove me wrong.

You cry about trolling and say things like "Leftists are the kings of evasion."

It's pretty clear that the right and alt right are suddenly starting to use the term Deep State to refer to the media etc... I guess it's all a coincidence.



Breitbart News Daily: Deep State Coup
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/02/14/breitbart-news-daily-deep-state-coup/

Sort of word for word....and....


http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/02/15/breitbart-news-daily-deep-state-leaks/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/15/bill-kristol-backs-deep-state-president-trump-republican-government/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/15/virgil-deep-state-bumps-off-general-flynn-whos-next-target/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/actual-intelligence-officials-are-laughing-at-the-deep-state?utm_term=.vfYbr0RE6#.msaxApkGn

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/deep-state-america/

[Mister D]

In fact, you are doing the correct thing and not engage him, for he is looking for a fight to get you in trouble. Just report it and move on, he has just shown his intentions.
I'm sorry but when has del ever actually engaged anyone? I mean in a real discussion?

[Ethereal]

In fact, you are doing the correct thing and not engage him, for he is looking for a fight to get you in trouble. Just report it and move on, he has just shown his intentions.
Absolutely ridiculous. I'm doing no such thing. I object to del's mockery of the term "deep state" and I object to his characterization of AZ Jim's dismissal of the Rasmussen poll. Del needs no help from me to get in trouble.

[Safety]

Doubtful. It's more likely the fact that del hardly ever engages in any sort of discussion after his "criticism". He appears to have continued that pattern here.

Considering the political climate around here, I don't blame him for keeping his responses short and to the point.

[Safety]

Absolutely ridiculous. I'm doing no such thing. I object to del's mockery of the term "deep state" and I object to his characterization of AZ Jim's dismissal of the Rasmussen poll. Del needs no help from me to get in trouble.

You can object to mockery without impugning someone's character.

[Safety]

I'm sorry but when has del ever actually engaged anyone? I mean in a real discussion?

No, I'm sorry, for I will not discuss members on the open forum.

[Mister D]

Considering how "some" members constantly get away with discussing him, which is frowned upon when it happens to other members, I don't blame him for keeping his responses short and to the point.

I appreciate your attempts to stick up for your buddy but del's obnoxious (anf often stupid) replies leave nothing to discuss but...well del and his behavior. I mean it's not like he raises interesting points for discussion. :laugh:

edit: I'll leave the typo in there so bethere can feel powerful.

[Safety]

I appreciate your attempts to stick up for your buddy but del's obnoxious (anf often stupid) replies leave nothing to discuss but...well del and his behavior. I mean it's not like he raises interesting points for discussion. :laugh:

Then be considerate and drop it.

[Mister D]

No, I'm sorry, for I will not discuss members on the open forum.
Feel free to PM me. I'd love to discuss your friend's contributions to the forum.

[Ethereal]

You cry about trolling and say things like "Leftists are the kings of evasion."

Stop being so evasive then.


It's pretty clear that the right and alt right are suddenly starting to use the term Deep State to refer to the media etc... I guess it's all a coincidence.




Breitbart News Daily: Deep State Coup


http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/02/14/breitbart-news-daily-deep-state-coup/

Sort of word for word....and....


http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/02/15/breitbart-news-daily-deep-state-leaks/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/15/bill-kristol-backs-deep-state-president-trump-republican-government/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/15/virgil-deep-state-bumps-off-general-flynn-whos-next-target/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/actual-intelligence-officials-are-laughing-at-the-deep-state?utm_term=.vfYbr0RE6#.msaxApkGn

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/deep-state-america/

Earlier you said the "deep state" refers to the military-industrial complex and power-brokers. How do you know that's not what Pete meant? And where is your proof that Pete gleaned this term from Breitbart or some other right-wing media outlet? Why not just admit you have no idea what Pete meant or where he got the term?

[hanger4]

i don't bother to deny it because there's no point in arguing with the closedminded.

there may be some people who would consider your decision to insert yourself into a conversation between hanger and myself for what appears to be the sole purpose of telling me what an asshole troll i am, *aggressive trolling*

quien sabe, eh?

Wait ..... what ?? Del you inserted yourself into a conversation between AZ Jim and myself.

[Ethereal]

I'm sorry but when has del ever actually engaged anyone? I mean in a real discussion?
It's happened on exceedingly rare occasions.

[Common Sense]

Stop being so evasive then.



Earlier you said the "deep state" refers to the military-industrial complex and power-brokers. How do you know that's not what Pete meant? And where is your proof that Pete gleaned this term from Breitbart or some other right-wing media outlet? Why not just admit you have no idea what Pete meant or where he got the term?

How am I being evasive?

Of course I am making an educated guess as to where people are picking up the term. However it is a pretty big coincidence that Pete's usage and application of the term so closely resemble that Breitbart piece.

Again, must just be a coincidence...

[Ethereal]

You can object to mockery without impugning someone's character.
How did I impugn his character? All I did was accuse him of flaunting the forum's rules, like he always does.

[Ethereal]

Wait ..... what ?? Del you inserted yourself into a conversation between AZ Jim and myself.
Oh snap!

[Common Sense]

How did I impugn his character? All I did was accuse him of flaunting the forum's rules, like he always does.
Well, you did say...


I'm sure it's not. But your posting habits don't seem to have changed much even after being punished. There's really only one more step after that. I doubt anyone would miss you.

[Ethereal]

How am I being evasive?

Since you asked...

Here is where our discussion of the "deep state" begins:


Deep State is a term that the right has recently coopted to mean the media and the so called elites they don't like.

It's a term that typically means the military industrial complex and power-brokers.

I scoffed at it as well because it's clear that those who are now using this term are only doing so because they've recently read it at sites like Breitbart who are championing the term. I mock them as well because their sudden use illustrates their transparency.

In response, I posed the following queries:


And what makes you think Pete wasn't referring to the military-industrial complex and power-brokers?

So you know what Pete meant, where he read it, and why he's using that term? Your powers of perception are simply amazing.

This is where your evasion begins. Instead of answering my questions, you respond by asking me a question that needs no answer:


What does this have to do with this thread?

You seem a bit worked up.

Enjoy.

Still, I answer your obtuse question with a straightforward answer, even though one is not needed:


Pete used the term "deep state" in his OP.

Del's first response was to mock Pete for using that term.

Are you starting to see the connection?

Then you resort to outright evasion:


Don't worry, you'll see lots of people saying Deep State soon...you'll figure it out.

Hence my "kings of evasion" remark.


Of course I am making an educated guess as to where people are picking up the term. However it is a pretty big coincidence that Pete's usage and application of the term so closely resemble that Breitbart piece.

Again, must just be a coincidence...

In other words, you have no idea where he got the term, what he meant by it, or why he's using it in this context. Why not just admit that? Do you think I'll lord it over you or something?

[Ethereal]

Well, you did say...

And that was impugning his character how?

[hanger4]

Considering the political climate around here, I don't blame him for keeping his responses short and to the point.

"to the point" ??

What point was del making by inserting himself into AZ's and my conversation playing semantics ?? He sure as hell wasn't engaging in point counter point.

[del]

In fact, you are doing the correct thing and not engage him, for he is looking for a fight to get you in trouble. Just report it and move on, he has just shown his intentions.
great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

/shrug

[Ethereal]

great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

/shrug

Appropriate, since you rarely discuss ideas or events.

[del]

great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

/shrug


Appropriate, since you rarely discuss ideas or events.
and you're discussing me

carry on

[Dr. Who]

I appreciate your attempts to stick up for your buddy but del's obnoxious (anf often stupid) replies leave nothing to discuss but...well del and his behavior. I mean it's not like he raises interesting points for discussion. :laugh:

edit: I'll leave the typo in there so bethere can feel powerful.


I'm sorry but when has del ever actually engaged anyone? I mean in a real discussion?


I think he has it figured out. If I didn't laugh at this place I'd be a little dismayed by the fact that VIPs (persons tasked with raising the level of discussion) approve of del's behavior.


It has nothing to do with that. I use the term "deep state" as well. That is why I object to del's mockery of it.


Absolutely ridiculous. I'm doing no such thing. I object to del's mockery of the term "deep state" and I object to his characterization of AZ Jim's dismissal of the Rasmussen poll. Del needs no help from me to get in trouble.


Considering the political climate around here, I don't blame him for keeping his responses short and to the point.


It's happened on exceedingly rare occasions.


How did I impugn his character? All I did was accuse him of flaunting the forum's rules, like he always does.


"to the point" ??

What point was del making by inserting himself into AZ's and my conversation playing semantics ?? He sure as hell wasn't engaging in point counter point.
Discuss the topic, not each other. If there is any modding to be done on this forum, the mods will do it.

[Ethereal]

and you're discussing me

carry on

You discuss other posters and people all the time. It's basically all you do.

[del]

and you're discussing me

carry on


You discuss other posters and people all the time. It's basically all you do.

[Subdermal]

i don't bother to deny it because there's no point in arguing with the closedminded.

there may be some people who would consider your decision to insert yourself into a conversation between hanger and myself for what appears to be the sole purpose of telling me what an asshole troll i am, *aggressive trolling*

quien sabe, eh?

"Conversation". :laughing1:

[AZ Jim]

They also predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.That was because they didn't know trump had been dealing with russia to "help" him.

[decedent]

Look at all the Lefty $#@!roaches desperate to bury news that counters their bull$#@! narrative.

:biglaugh:

Rassmussen sucks. Watch and learn: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319913-poll-trumps-approval-rating-drops-to-39-percent


The irony here is how you guys put so much faith in Rasmussen in 2012. It was the only poll that showed Romney winning. It is a demonstrably biased source, but people who enjoy fake news and believe everything Trump says don't know any better, so they use Rasmussen as "proof'.

[decedent]

They also predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.

No, they predicted that she'd get the most votes. They were correct (most polls were).


Polls don't, and cannot, call elections.

[Bethere]

No, they predicted that she'd get the most votes. They were correct (most polls were).


Polls don't, and cannot, call elections.

17303

[Peter1469]

No, they predicted that she'd get the most votes. They were correct (most polls were).


Polls don't, and cannot, call elections.
Yes they can if they take samples from the entire nation and not just a cherry-picked few.

It is math. And the number of electors needed to win is no mystery.

[MMC]

Deep State is a term that the right has recently coopted to mean the media and the so called elites they don't like. It's a term that typically means the military industrial complex and power-brokers.

I scoffed at it as well because it's clear that those who are now using this term are only doing so because they've recently read it at sites like Breitbart who are championing the term. I mock them as well because their sudden use illustrates their transparency.

Deep state is a term coopted by the Right to mean the media and the so called elites? Yet it was Greenwald that was one of the first to use it.


So basically you don't know anything about what the term deep state means. Nor who was using it. Thanks for validating that.

[MMC]

Stop being so evasive then.



Earlier you said the "deep state" refers to the military-industrial complex and power-brokers. How do you know that's not what Pete meant? And where is your proof that Pete gleaned this term from Breitbart or some other right-wing media outlet? Why not just admit you have no idea what Pete meant or where he got the term?

Actually, he said the Media and so called elites. You were correct when you said he didn't know anything about it, and was just looking to play cheerleader. Hence running with the Breitbart link.

[MMC]

I appreciate your attempts to stick up for your buddy but del's obnoxious (anf often stupid) replies leave nothing to discuss but...well del and his behavior. I mean it's not like he raises interesting points for discussion. :laugh:


edit: I'll leave the typo in there so bethere can feel powerful.


I figure its their norm and should be expected. Although, they don't get as vocal if there is just one or two of them around.

[decedent]

Yes they can if they take samples from the entire nation and not just a cherry-picked few.

A poll isn't a study, and doesn't have a hypothesis. A hypothesis is needed to draw conclusions -- parametric inferences that represent a population.


A poll is just questions from said sample. An inference, like who will win an election, can be obtained from poll data (from hypothesis testing), but the poll itself doesn't state who will win. It's the tests that determine this -- within a certain permissible confidence interval.

Some people chose to use the poll results, which showed Hillary winning the most votes, to predict her winning the electoral college also. They were obviously wrong.



It is math. And the number of electors needed to win is no mystery.


It was fair to assume that the person winning the most general election votes would also win the most electoral votes.

[Peter1469]

It was fair to assume that the person winning the most general election votes would also win the most electoral votes.How do you figure? Each state has a different number of electors.

.

[AZ Jim]

Pete used the term "deep state" in his OP.

Del's first response was to mock Pete for using that term.

Are you starting to see the connection?Gawd! Quit whining! You have taken over the thread with this bullshit!

[resister]

Gawd! Quit whining! You have taken over the thread with this bullshit!A great contribution of your own ! ^

[decedent]

How do you figure? Each state has a different number of electors.

.


There have only been five presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. It seems to be a safe bet that the winner of the general election would win the electoral college.

[Subdermal]

There have only been five presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. It seems to be a safe bet that the winner of the general election would win the electoral college.

I bet smart. Not safe.

Make a note of it.

[decedent]

I bet smart. Not safe.

Make a note of it.

2012.

[Subdermal]

2012.

And?

[Tahuyaman]

As suspected, RASMUSSEN!!!!! Useless,


Polls are only considered useful when and if they support your political views.

[Peter1469]

There have only been five presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. It seems to be a safe bet that the winner of the general election would win the electoral college.

Except in order to win the EC you have to have broad support across the nation. And that support can be shallow.

The democrats have a demographic problem: their support is heavily concentrated in small pockets. If that doesn't change they cannot win the EC, and hence the Presidency.

[MisterVeritis]

It was fair to assume that the person winning the most general election votes would also win the most electoral votes.
It should no longer come as a surprise that when you fail to understand the game's rules you will very likely lose the game.

Crooked Hillary and her buddy Putin did not understand where they needed to cheat in order to win. That was great new for the nation.

[Tahuyaman]

Democrats have tried to ensure their hold on power by creating then expanding the dependent / entitlement class. In doing so they have awakened and alienated the working and middle classes.