Had to...the father refused to meet Trump and the called him/administration out.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
Had to...the father refused to meet Trump and the called him/administration out.
That's so appalling.
Edit: Sorry, have hickups with hanging posts.
Edit: Sorry, have hickups with hanging posts.
A second Jewish cemetery was vandalised earlier, too.
2 in DC too.
Thankfully they've all been hoaxes thus far and the only things they've damaged have been cemeteries.
FBI needs to get on this - nip it in the bud, before some idiots decide...well prank calls were fun, maybe a couple of molotovs would be more fun.
When did America stop educating kids about how the World Wars came about?
And Muslim groups have crowdfunded to get them repaired, the money was raised in a matter of hours.
1914.
Put a neo nazi in the whitehouse and on the security council and then are suprised anti-semitism is on the rise.
Brietbart is described as many things, but under bannon there was one consistent trait, increased levels of anti-semetic posts. It has always been more anti-jewish than it has been anti-muslim.
Brietbart is described as many things, but under bannon there was one consistent trait, increased levels of anti-semetic posts. It has always been more anti-jewish than it has been anti-muslim.
I was about to post this, too. On a similar note, the Anne Frank Center released yesterday this statement, appealing to 45 to outline how he intends to combat all sorts of hate (crimes), including islamophobia. So good to see that people look for common ground and solidarity.
Just in case any one had any hopes or illusions about it.
After Michael Bay's 'Pearl Harbour' I think they agreed to pretend the whole thing never happened.
The much maligned British sequel to the much maligned American original.
It isn't my fault they can't spell
Pfft. We just remove all the extra letters you lot like to leave in there.It isn't my fault they can't spell
Their kids isn't learnin'.
what's there to know?
WW1
- some dude shot some dude and then everyone piled in
WWII -
- Hitler was doing his thing in Europe and everyone in Europe was either a spectator or surrendering (especially the French - stupid surrender monkeys)
- Devious Japanese attacked us, when all we were doing was chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool. And shooting some bball outside of the school
- Team America then went in...opened up a can of whoop ass and saved Europe.
- Finally, we delivered justice to the Japanese via the Enola Gay
- FIN
Seriously though - forget that, I'd say at least 50 percent of current students couldn't give you a decent summary of the Revolutionary war or Civil war
WW1
- some dude shot some dude and then everyone piled in
WWII -
- Hitler was doing his thing in Europe and everyone in Europe was either a spectator or surrendering (especially the French - stupid surrender monkeys)
- Devious Japanese attacked us, when all we were doing was chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool. And shooting some bball outside of the school
- Team America then went in...opened up a can of whoop ass and saved Europe.
- Finally, we delivered justice to the Japanese via the Enola Gay
- FIN
Seriously though - forget that, I'd say at least 50 percent of current students couldn't give you a decent summary of the Revolutionary war or Civil war
Or make complete bullshit films (U571) that lead everyone to think you feckers stole the first enigma machine that eventually led to the end of WWII and then credit HMS Bulldog in the end credits that nobody stays around to watch, thus leading a whole generation of American kids to believe they won the war, just like Vietnam that they also won too.
That doesn't trump (pun intended) Rudyard Kipling. Not one bit.
Erm...................
Feels like alot less leaks coming from White House as well as Trump being more strategic and less inflammatory in his use of Twitter.
Which if trust is even more dangerous as we have no idea what he is plotting
Which if trust is even more dangerous as we have no idea what he is plotting
His neo hawks certainly grabbed the power but Bush also had wise hands like Colin Powell around whom he chose to sideline.
Bush wanted the new hawk agenda which is why he backed those thugs.
Erm...................
Hang on... did he even read that?!?!
Am I missing something? He looks awful in these numbers.
Plus, the point that he's making isn't supported. GOP has a higher 'Very positive number' but surely that's 100% to be expected for the ruling party. Yet the negative numbers are both equal.
Also - 32% of respondents that voted for Trump admit to doing so in order to vote against Hillary.
EDIT::: I truly give up on this guy. If he can look at that and read a positive narrative for himself then god help the world.
Erm...................
Has he read it wrong AND retweeted it?
Bigger question: will he delete it?
Also...
The trend is away from the Dems and to the GOP though. There's also a poll showing that for the 1st time in a decade, more people identify as Republicans than as Dems.
Mind posting the supporting facts for either of those claims?
Not being antagonistic but I don't read that from Trumps post. There's maybe 10% positivity in it for him. Everything else is damning.
Page 5: check current numbers with the most recent ones (in the next column), pg 7 for Dems. The only good thing is McConnell's ratings (Pg 9) though they, too, have gone up.
For more interesting stuff, check Pg 12, Q15 (people now think the economy is fair by 10, last checked it was -13). Also in a generally anti-Trump poll a majority believe the media is scared and thus lie, and check the trend on Q17 on the next page. Q18 is downright terrifying.
Not that surprising, 10 years ago they had Bush. Public opinion always favours the party not in power so Obama being there for 8 years would have played a big part it that stat.
The parts you've quoted on Pg 5/7 illustrate;
Democrats had a large shift to "Not sure".
Democrats still has a lower disapproval value
You're speaking about trends and calling this an 'Anti-Trump poll' but the fact of the matter is, he won the election. Of course certain values will show an uptick. But the matter of fact is: they still demonstrate a greater trust in the democrat party than the republican. [Page 13, Q17, 37% Democrat, 19% Republican. (33% Trump)] - That actually shows an absolute lack of faith in the Republicans in Congress.
Finally... Question 18 and 18a are not terrifying results. Of course people that think trump will bring about change would think the change will be good to a larger degree. So only 40% (57% likely+) of people think he will very likely bring change and only 63% of those think the change will be good. If you run those numbers logically, there's nothing scary about it.
Anyone that reads that poll and gets more than a 10% positive for Trump is delusional.
The trend is from Jan to Feb, not pre- and post-election. He has gained stature, credibility, popularity from Jan; the Dems have lost.
No. That's not what the statistics show.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
The most recent results show a huge uptick in independent because (I'd imagine) the democrat party has no figurehead.
The GOP numbers have not increased. Exactly the same average for that entire data set. they're not stealing Democrat voters they're staying where they are. Democrats are losing votes to independents as is the case anytime they lose an election. The numbers are there clear as day.
If the current results were replicated month on month I'd accept what you said but it's not a trend. Not now. It will certainly be interested to see where it goes though.
I'd need you to explain how you can read that poll report and draw those conclusions.
They have the presidency, senate, house, 31 state houses, and (soon), the Supreme Court. They don't need anything more.
By seeing his numbers in Jan and his numbers in Feb, and the Dems' numbers in Jan and Feb. As a control you can look at the GOP's numbers in Jan and Feb.
As you said, it's the 1st month, the alarming thing is if it continues. But it's there in the data, whether you like it or not.
If they don't do something stupid and re-nominate Clinton, the Dems are set to do well in 2020, when redistricting will be decided. And if they do well then they could easily feck the GOP for over a decade at every level.
I forgot Q4 on Page 3 - follow the monthly numbers from Oct to Feb. Congress approval rating is at a high from 2009, GOP Congressional rating is at a high from 2011 (since when they have won House elections and many seante seats), Trump's likeability is at a high from 1990, the GOP's from 2010, Dems at the lowest since the poll started, but it's all great I'm sure.
Btw, pg 10 summary: Trump's tweet is right, also Nancy Pelosi is the most unpopular person in existence.
Btw, pg 10 summary: Trump's tweet is right, also Nancy Pelosi is the most unpopular person in existence.
So you don't have the data?
You linked a series of polling results showing the GOP number not move, then the Democrat number go down for the month after the election - while the party in question has no figurehead - but those numbers not go to the opposing party.... In EXACTLY the same pattern as every other election cycle... Then call that a trend...
You're being obtuse.
I must admit I'm struggling to see how he can take anything positive from that shitty poll. Not to mention, it's hardly a reliable source either is it? And it was only last week or so he said he doesn't trust polls. It's madness.
Good, that's the 1st time you mentioned that it happens during election cycles, because
a. I was too lazy to bother checking it properly but now I'm forced to
b. the numbers and summary otherwise show a decline in Dem support which you were outright denying.
GOP numbers nosedived in Dec 2012, and did not recover till after this election (despite their easy, big win in 2014), while Dem numbers held steady till Jan (between 35-40 for many years) and fell to 30 in Feb, a month after he got into office. I will not claim to know what that means.
And I'll repeat that his tweet is accurate: -8(R) > -16(D); for reference in Jan -9(D) > -10(R), and -3(D) > -23(R) in Oct.
Edited mislabeled numbers.
Good to see NBC is no longer fake news...what with this being a NBC/WSJ poll
- Status