Abandoning allies

[Stretch 74]

90% of people who watch the World Series are baseball fans. Not even close to 90% of population care about baseball.

Trump 2.0’s approval rating (47%) is the lowest of any president in 1st 45 days of anyone elected this century by a considerable amount.

Since you folks here are are doing internet arm wrestling over a point or two on vote totals, I might as well correct your random stat on Trump's job approval. At least you didn't cherry pick the lowest outlier poll (42 or 43%) that someone (I think it was Flat) recently quoted. Realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls shows Trump with a 48.8 approval rate. Reuters, CNN, and NPR polls are the only ones showing him underwater, all rather left leaning outlets. Coincidence or intended?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

Yes, 48.8 approval may still be the lowest of the presidents in this century, haven't seen any data on that. But it certainly can be believed, based on the behavior of the Democrats as they put their party over country and attempt to impede, hassle, attack, ruin, belittle, and oppose anything and everything that Donald Trump says or does. Their behavior at the joint address to Congress on Tuesday and then at Al Green's censure today proves that they are all deeply infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome and that trying to destroy the man means more to them than recognizing good things for the country and the people that live in it.

They are driving us toward a civil war. It may not involve mass usage of firearms, but it will be very ugly. I am very sad about that.

 

[Coug90]

Plug whatever numbers you want - Trump won the popular vote; polls show his message was wildly accepted Tuesday night.

Now do operative conditioning.

You fell for the same nonsense during COVID.

Regardless of how accurate your numbers are, seems like a good time to quote the late great George Carlin…”Think about how dumb the average American is. Now think about the fact that half of them are dumber than that.”

 

[Observer11]

Since you folks here are are doing internet arm wrestling over a point or two on vote totals, I might as well correct your random stat on Trump's job approval. At least you didn't cherry pick the lowest outlier poll (42 or 43%) that someone (I think it was Flat) recently quoted. Realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls shows Trump with a 48.8 approval rate. Reuters, CNN, and NPR polls are the only ones showing him underwater, all rather left leaning outlets. Coincidence or intended?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

Yes, 48.8 approval may still be the lowest of the presidents in this century, haven't seen any data on that. But it certainly can be believed, based on the behavior of the Democrats as they put their party over country and attempt to impede, hassle, attack, ruin, belittle, and oppose anything and everything that Donald Trump says or does. Their behavior at the joint address to Congress on Tuesday and then at Al Green's censure today proves that they are all deeply infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome and that trying to destroy the man means more to them than recognizing good things for the country and the people that live in it.

They are driving us toward a civil war. It may not involve mass usage of firearms, but it will be very ugly. I am very sad about that.

Biden approval low - July 2024 36%

 

[WillieThePimp]

Since you folks here are are doing internet arm wrestling over a point or two on vote totals, I might as well correct your random stat on Trump's job approval. At least you didn't cherry pick the lowest outlier poll (42 or 43%) that someone (I think it was Flat) recently quoted. Realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls shows Trump with a 48.8 approval rate. Reuters, CNN, and NPR polls are the only ones showing him underwater, all rather left leaning outlets. Coincidence or intended?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

Yes, 48.8 approval may still be the lowest of the presidents in this century, haven't seen any data on that. But it certainly can be believed, based on the behavior of the Democrats as they put their party over country and attempt to impede, hassle, attack, ruin, belittle, and oppose anything and everything that Donald Trump says or does. Their behavior at the joint address to Congress on Tuesday and then at Al Green's censure today proves that they are all deeply infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome and that trying to destroy the man means more to them than recognizing good things for the country and the people that live in it.

They are driving us toward a civil war. It may not involve mass usage of firearms, but it will be very ugly. I am very sad about that.

Whackadoodle posted:

“51% of the American public voted for the current President and 70% approved of the President's message Tuesday night and they are all in a cult.”

There are approximately 245 million registered voters in the US, 77 million of whom voted for Trump

77:245 = 31% of the America’s registered voters voted for Trump.

31%.

 

[Observer11]

Whackadoodle posted:

“51% of the American public voted for the current President and 70% approved of the President's message Tuesday night and they are all in a cult.”

There are approximately 245 million registered voters in the US, 77 million of whom voted for Trump

77:245 = 31% of the America’s registered voters voted for Trump.

31%.

Trump won, right? Or are we recycling Hilary's 2016 stolen election stuff.

Now back to the point - operative conditioning and cults. Do tell.

 

[WillieThePimp]

Trump won, right? Or are we recycling Hilary's 2016 stolen election stuff.

Now back to the point - operative conditioning and cults. Do tell.

You said what you said. Now you’re pivoting,

 

[95coug]

Whackadoodle posted:

“51% of the American public voted for the current President and 70% approved of the President's message Tuesday night and they are all in a cult.”

There are approximately 245 million registered voters in the US, 77 million of whom voted for Trump

77:245 = 31% of the America’s registered voters voted for Trump.

31%.

The stat you're contradicting is completely false, but yours is also incorrect. There are 240-245 million people who are eligible to vote in the US. Only around 165 million of those are registered to vote, and somewhere around 155 million actually voted. Trump got 46.9% of registered voters, 31-32% of the population eligible to vote, and only 22.7% of the total population. Not sure which of those numbers one would consider "the American public," but none of them are 51%...or any other majority. And certainly not a mandate.

The number of people who didn't vote at all outnumber those who voted for either candidate...by quite a bit.

As for the 70% approval of the speech, that's based on a sample of only 1200 people, more than half of whom were Republicans.

 

[Observer11]

You said what you said. Now you’re pivoting,

Operative conditioning and cult behavior was in the first post. Haven't moved.

Caught up in the forest without seeing the trees, friend.

 

[CougInSpain]

Operative conditioning and cult behavior was in the first post. Haven't moved.

Caught up in the forest without seeing the trees, friend.

Not surprising because these libs wouldn't even be able to see a train coming if they were standing on the tracks. Their TDS doesn't allow for self-reflection.

 

[WillieThePimp]

The stat you're contradicting is completely false, but yours is also incorrect. There are 240-245 million people who are eligible to vote in the US. Only around 165 million of those are registered to vote, and somewhere around 155 million actually voted. Trump got 46.9% of registered voters, 31-32% of the population eligible to vote, and only 22.7% of the total population. Not sure which of those numbers one would consider "the American public," but none of them are 51%...or any other majority. And certainly not a mandate.

The number of people who didn't vote at all outnumber those who voted for either candidate...by quite a bit.

As for the 70% approval of the speech, that's based on a sample of only 1200 people, more than half of whom were Republicans.

I stand corrected. However I’m not totally wrong as he did say 51% of the American public.

 

[Observer11]

I stand corrected. However I’m not totally wrong as he did say 51% of the American public.

Already addressed that previously. Yet you don't want to address my question.

Operative conditioning and cult like behavior.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

The stat you're contradicting is completely false, but yours is also incorrect. There are 240-245 million people who are eligible to vote in the US. Only around 165 million of those are registered to vote, and somewhere around 155 million actually voted. Trump got 46.9% of registered voters, 31-32% of the population eligible to vote, and only 22.7% of the total population. Not sure which of those numbers one would consider "the American public," but none of them are 51%...or any other majority. And certainly not a mandate.

The number of people who didn't vote at all outnumber those who voted for either candidate...by quite a bit.

As for the 70% approval of the speech, that's based on a sample of only 1200 people, more than half of whom were Republicans.

Statistics only count when they say what I agree with.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The stat you're contradicting is completely false, but yours is also incorrect. There are 240-245 million people who are eligible to vote in the US. Only around 165 million of those are registered to vote, and somewhere around 155 million actually voted. Trump got 46.9% of registered voters, 31-32% of the population eligible to vote, and only 22.7% of the total population. Not sure which of those numbers one would consider "the American public," but none of them are 51%...or any other majority. And certainly not a mandate.

The number of people who didn't vote at all outnumber those who voted for either candidate...by quite a bit.

As for the 70% approval of the speech, that's based on a sample of only 1200 people, more than half of whom were Republicans.

I will assume your stats are accurate (as opposed to stats from others) .
Anyway, this is disturbing. Here we are the land of the free, and a full third of people don't register to vote? That is F-ed up.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Since you folks here are are doing internet arm wrestling over a point or two on vote totals, I might as well correct your random stat on Trump's job approval. At least you didn't cherry pick the lowest outlier poll (42 or 43%) that someone (I think it was Flat) recently quoted. Realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls shows Trump with a 48.8 approval rate. Reuters, CNN, and NPR polls are the only ones showing him underwater, all rather left leaning outlets. Coincidence or intended?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

Yes, 48.8 approval may still be the lowest of the presidents in this century, haven't seen any data on that. But it certainly can be believed, based on the behavior of the Democrats as they put their party over country and attempt to impede, hassle, attack, ruin, belittle, and oppose anything and everything that Donald Trump says or does. Their behavior at the joint address to Congress on Tuesday and then at Al Green's censure today proves that they are all deeply infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome and that trying to destroy the man means more to them than recognizing good things for the country and the people that live in it.

They are driving us toward a civil war. It may not involve mass usage of firearms, but it will be very ugly. I am very sad about that.

They? Have you heard how Trump (both 45 and 47) refer to the other party - as a whole?

Yes, I'm aware of the Hitler slurs. I don't use them. It never advances the ball. But the democratic leadership, and certainly our last president hasn't used that term.

This shit-stain has said democrats hate democracy, are coming for your bibles and a bunch more that I could list. He is ACTIVELY divisive. You can't really support that rhetoric, right?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Biden approval low - July 2024 36%

COUGinNCW said:
Trump 2.0’s approval rating (47%) is the lowest of any president in 1st 45 days of anyone elected this century by a considerable amount

You cited a poll 4 yrs into Biden's presidency. Not the same, right? Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

They? Have you heard how Trump (both 45 and 47) refer to the other party - as a whole?

Yes, I'm aware of the Hitler slurs. I don't use them. It never advances the ball. But the democratic leadership, and certainly our last president hasn't used that term.

This shit-stain has said democrats hate democracy, are coming for your bibles and a bunch more that I could list. He is ACTIVELY divisive. You can't really support that rhetoric, right?

And calling the President of the United States Hitler, a Nazi, a racist, a fascist, a xenophobe, an existential threat to democracy, a Russian asset, etc. is not divisive?

 

[Observer11]

And calling the President of the United States Hitler, a Nazi, a racist, a fascist, a xenophobe, an existential threat to democracy, a Russian asset, etc. is not divisive?

(Operative conditioning)

 

[WillieThePimp]

Already addressed that previously. Yet you don't want to address my question.

Operative conditioning and cult like behavior.

I addressed your first paragraph which was full of baloney.

I couldn’t give a runny shit about your whackadoodle hypothetical gibberty gook.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Already addressed that previously. Yet you don't want to address my question.

Operative conditioning and cult like behavior.

When you keep using this "operative conditioning" term...where did you learn that? You didnt come up with that all by your lonesome.

Also, when you keep uttering the "trust the science" to denigrate covid mitigating strategies...can you name a single actual scientist/researcher involved in covid research science and that used that term?

You may be tempted to go after fauci (who wasn't actively involved in research and the science) for saying "follow the science". His job was definitely taking the latest findings and communicating them to the public and advising shit-stain45. I guess your "operative conditioning" was and still is in full gear.

Place whatever it is you think is ahead of science at your own peril, I guess. Oh right...you did. You voted for shit-stain47 who appointed RFK Jr.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

And calling the President of the United States Hitler, a Nazi, a racist, a fascist, a xenophobe, an existential threat to democracy, a Russian asset, etc. is not divisive?

Refer to my rsponse to stretch in #494. I addressed all of that.

However...the last three terms you used applied to him by fierce critics isn't necessarily a closed topic. Taihtsat

 

[WillieThePimp]

When you keep using this "operative conditioning" term...where did you learn that? You didnt come up with that all by your lonesome.

Also, when you keep uttering the "trust the science" to denigrate covid mitigating strategies...can you name a single actual scientist/researcher involved in covid research science and that used that term?

You may be tempted to go after fauci (who wasn't actively involved in research and the science) for saying "follow the science". His job was definitely taking the latest findings and communicating them to the public and advising shit-stain45. I guess your "operative conditioning" was and still is in full gear.

Place whatever it is you think is ahead of science at your own peril, I guess. Oh right...you did. You voted for shit-stain47 who appointed RFK Jr.

From another whackadoodle he's learned an obscure term that he likely doesn’t understand as well as he’s pretending to but he’s going to try and wield it like a hammer nonetheless.

 

[dgibbons]

Refer to my rsponse to stretch in #494. I addressed all of that.

However...the last three terms you used applied to him by fierce critics isn't necessarily a closed topic. Taihtsat

Whether you use “Hitler slurs” or not is immaterial to the question posed. Care to answer?

 

[95coug]

From another whackadoodle he's learned an obscure term that he likely doesn’t understand as well as he’s pretending to but he’s going to try and wield it like a hammer nonetheless.

It’s actually “operant conditioning,” so I’d say you’re correct

 

[WillieThePimp]

It’s actually “operant conditioning,” so I’d say you’re correct

Brings to mind the Malcom Gladwell “Igon Value problem”.

 

[95coug]

Brings to mind the Malcom Gladwell “Igon Value problem”.

Total tangent…I recently listened to Malcolm Gladwell reading his own audiobook (The Bomber Mafia).

Dude needs to stick to writing.

 

[WillieThePimp]

Total tangent…I recently listened to Malcolm Gladwell reading his own audiobook (The Bomber Mafia).

Dude needs to stick to writing.

Haven’t heard him speak in quite a few years. He’s an interesting guy who is an extremely talented storyteller but has been known to make leaps in logic and talk out of his depth.

 

[Observer11]

It’s actually “operant conditioning,” so I’d say you’re correct

Attaboy. Finally. It only took all day.

 

[95coug]

Haven’t heard him speak in quite a few years. He’s an interesting guy who is an extremely talented storyteller but has been known to make leaps in logic and talk out of his depth.

I think that sums up that particular book pretty well. His tone and cadence while reading didn’t really fit the content. He also uses sound effects in his narration that were kind of distracting. There was one sequence where I think the sound was supposed to be a droning airplane engine. I was listening in the car and that the car was making the noise. Actually had to turn off the book to make sure I didn’t have a problem.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Whether you use “Hitler slurs” or not is immaterial to the question posed. Care to answer?

I'll answer. I don't use them because it doesn't advance the ball (isn't helpful in discourse). I am aware of Democrats using the comparison. I'm not aware of party leadership using the term, certainly not the way you guys quote it "trump is Hitler".

I sure could have missed some, though. And if so, then yes, it is devisive and counter-productive. Taihtsat

 

[Observer11]

I'll answer. I don't use them because it doesn't advance the ball (isn't helpful in discourse). I am aware of Democrats using the comparison. I'm not aware of party leadership using the term, certainly not the way you guys quote it "trump is Hitler".

I sure could have missed some, though. And if so, then yes, it is devisive and counter-productive. Taihtsat

The phrase habitually used during the run up to the election coordinated effort was "Trump is literally Hitler"

The DNC must not have received the memo about Godwin's Law.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The phrase habitually used during the run up to the election coordinated effort was "Trump is literally Hitler"

The DNC must not have received the memo about Godwin's Law.

Neat, now you gonna answer my questions directed at you?

 

[Coug90]

The phrase habitually used during the run up to the election coordinated effort was "Trump is literally Hitler"

The DNC must not have received the memo about Godwin's Law.

It’s weird that you’re so obsessed with this when golden idles of Trump have been a regular at Republican conventions as if he’s the second coming of Christ. Hell, he said “I’m the chosen one” himself. I realize two extremes but I’m comfortable saying he’s a helluva lot closer to hitler than the profit your cult makes him out to be.

As most things go somewhere in the middle I guess 🤷

 

[WillieThePimp]

T

It’s weird that you’re so obsessed with this when golden idles of Trump have been a regular at Republican conventions as if he’s the second coming of Christ. Hell, he said “I’m the chosen one” himself. I realize two extremes but I’m comfortable saying he’s a helluva lot closer to hitler than the profit your cult makes him out to be.

As most things go somewhere in the middle I guess 🤷

He’s obsessed because like 74 and the others he suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Observer11]

It’s weird that you’re so obsessed with this when golden idles of Trump have been a regular at Republican conventions as if he’s the second coming of Christ. Hell, he said “I’m the chosen one” himself. I realize two extremes but I’m comfortable saying he’s a helluva lot closer to hitler than the profit your cult makes him out to be.

As most things go somewhere in the middle I guess 🤷

What cult is that?

And feel free to provide evidence of me personally contributing a dime to Trump. Or for any political organization for that matter. Cults usually like the cash along with the mind contribution.

 

[Observer11]

Neat, now you gonna answer my questions directed at you?

Sure - when someone finally answers why 17+ members of Congress released the exact same video the day after Trump's address.

(Hint: it's the same reason we were bombarded with dancing nurses, literally Hitler and many fine people over and over and over again)

 

[WillieThePimp]

What cult is that?

And feel free to provide evidence of me personally contributing a dime to Trump. Or for any political organization for that matter. Cults usually like the cash along with the mind contribution.

So you’re the exception to your rule. Freeloader. Pony up.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Just to add a note of levity. In 1994, Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia, the US and others regarding the pile of nuclear weapons they inherited with the fall of the Soviet Union. They were among the top nuclear powers at that point. They agreed to send those weapons to Russia to be dismantled. In return, all the treaty signers (including Russia) agreed to honor their territorial boundaries.

20 years later, Russia invaded and took a chunk of Ukraine. Senator Marco Rubio made a very impassioned speech about why the US had to hold firm on this sort of territorial gobbling if the US was to have any global credibility. Here is a reasonably short clip. If you have a sense of humor, I'll ask you to watch. This is even more appropriate in light of Trump's comments this week that if the US fails in its bid to make Panama give up the Panama Canal, it is Rubio's fault: "And we have Marco Rubio in charge. Good luck, Marco. Now we know who to blame if anything goes wrong".

The clip from 10-ish years ago:

Rubio re: honoring treaties

 

[dgibbons]

Just to add a note of levity. In 1994, Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia, the US and others regarding the pile of nuclear weapons they inherited with the fall of the Soviet Union. They were among the top nuclear powers at that point. They agreed to send those weapons to Russia to be dismantled. In return, all the treaty signers (including Russia) agreed to honor their territorial boundaries.

20 years later, Russia invaded and took a chunk of Ukraine. Senator Marco Rubio made a very impassioned speech about why the US had to hold firm on this sort of territorial gobbling if the US was to have any global credibility. Here is a reasonably short clip. If you have a sense of humor, I'll ask you to watch. This is even more appropriate in light of Trump's comments this week that if the US fails in its bid to make Panama give up the Panama Canal, it is Rubio's fault: "And we have Marco Rubio in charge. Good luck, Marco. Now we know who to blame if anything goes wrong".

The clip from 10-ish years ago:

Rubio re: honoring treaties

It's a little weirder than that. The nukes were located in Ukraine. I assume they had CCCP written on them. The USSR also had nukes in Belarus and Kazakhstan (and perhaps other Soviet Socialist Republics that had or would soon become separate countries). Ukraine had no ability to launch them. The nukes were under the control of the USSR miliary command. I think it's more accurate to frame the treaty as "this is how the issue with the nukes was resolved", rather than frame it as "Ukraine gave up its nukes in this treaty". Could there have been a different outcome to the negotiations where Ukraine ended up with the nukes and the launch codes, I suppose so.

If Montana seceded, I would not say the ICBMs there were inherited by Montana.

 

[WillieThePimp]

It's a little weirder than that. The nukes were located in Ukraine. I assume they had CCCP written on them. The USSR also had nukes in Belarus and Kazakhstan (and perhaps other Soviet Socialist Republics that had or would soon become separate countries). Ukraine had no ability to launch them. The nukes were under the control of the USSR miliary command. I think it's more accurate to frame the treaty as "this is how the issue with the nukes was resolved", rather than frame it as "Ukraine gave up its nukes in this treaty". Could there have been a different outcome to the negotiations where Ukraine ended up with the nukes and the launch codes, I suppose so.

If Montana seceded, I would not say the ICBMs there were inherited by Montana.

Neat. Try and reframe it to the narrative ( ie Vlad’s agenda) that you are trying to push. This is a prime example of how full of shit you are.

 

[dgibbons]

Neat. Try and reframe it to the narrative ( ie Vlad’s agenda) that you are trying to push. This is a prime example of how full of shit you are.

Did Ukraine have the launch codes?