The Democrats Better Worry...

[PoliticalChic]

You're worried about your total number of cerebral neurons???


Too late.


At least it's down to a manageable number.

I wonder why such a straightforward question has you spinning and deflecting so hard.

Oh, I'm just kidding.

I know why.
.

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Thanks, much appreciated.

Finally some intellectual honesty here.
.

Many of us are still awaiting some intellectual courage, on your part.

Can we get our hopes up???

That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread, after I asked you a clear and direct question. So you're still in avoidance mode.

I realize how much effort you put into seeming confident - in fact, I even find it a bit charming in its own way - but your schtick has some holes that need to be addressed.

If the best you can do is hit and run, there really isn't much there to work with. Such behavior is not the sign of a confident person.
.

1. Sooo.....today we open with both a vocabulary lesson, and further proof that you are a dunce....as though further proof was necessary.

Burnishing your creds as a dunce, you wrote:
"That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread,....So you're still in avoidance mode."

a. Vocabulary for you to learn today:
a·void·ance
əˈvoidəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the action of keeping away from or not doing something. Google

Yet you claimed "That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread"


One would expect that even a ...slow....third grader would be familiar with the term 'avoidance,' and its usage.

Now....what does that reveal about you?



2. Now...as to not answering your truly dumb query directly..."five or six time"....a more perceptive individual would have caught on to the fact that I was mocking you.


3. Now, isn't this special. See...one day we'll reminisce about how awkward that this encounter between us had been before we got to know one another, and realized how swell each of us truly was.
One can only hope that you are impervious to insincerity.

 

[Mac1958]

I wonder why such a straightforward question has you spinning and deflecting so hard.

Oh, I'm just kidding.

I know why.
.

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Thanks, much appreciated.

Finally some intellectual honesty here.
.

Many of us are still awaiting some intellectual courage, on your part.

Can we get our hopes up???

That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread, after I asked you a clear and direct question. So you're still in avoidance mode.

I realize how much effort you put into seeming confident - in fact, I even find it a bit charming in its own way - but your schtick has some holes that need to be addressed.

If the best you can do is hit and run, there really isn't much there to work with. Such behavior is not the sign of a confident person.
.

1. Sooo.....today we open with both a vocabulary lesson, and further proof that you are a dunce....as though further proof was necessary.

Burnishing your creds as a dunce, you wrote:
"That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread,....So you're still in avoidance mode."

a. Vocabulary for you to learn today:
a·void·ance
əˈvoidəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the action of keeping away from or not doing something. Google

Yet you claimed "That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread"


One would expect that even a ...slow....third grader would be familiar with the term 'avoidance,' and its usage.

Now....what does that reveal about you?



2. Now...as to not answering your truly dumb query directly..."five or six time"....a more perceptive individual would have caught on to the fact that I was mocking you.


3. Now, isn't this special. See...one day we'll reminisce about how awkward that this encounter between us had been before we got to know one another, and realized how swell each of us truly was.
One can only hope that you are impervious to insincerity.

Well, I saw the immediate personal insult there, so no reason to read on.

Another hole in your schtick is that you simplistically believe everyone will fall for it. Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear that you're going to avoid my direct question and rely instead on the standard avoid/pivot/attack strategy deployed by hardcore partisan ideologues on both ends of the spectrum. Amazing how similar you are to those you so loathe.

I see through your game and you know it. But if you need to keep humping my leg, go ahead.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am startin' to worry about you....perseveration is a sign of schizophrenia....

Okay, does two plus two usually equal four?

Just checking here!
.

You're worried about your total number of cerebral neurons???


Too late.


At least it's down to a manageable number.

I wonder why such a straightforward question has you spinning and deflecting so hard.

Oh, I'm just kidding.

I know why.
.

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Thanks, much appreciated.

Finally some intellectual honesty here.
.

Many of us are still awaiting some intellectual courage, on your part.

Can we get our hopes up???

That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread, after I asked you a clear and direct question. So you're still in avoidance mode.

I realize how much effort you put into seeming confident - in fact, I even find it a bit charming in its own way - but your schtick has some holes that need to be addressed.

If the best you can do is hit and run, there really isn't much there to work with. Such behavior is not the sign of a confident person.
.

1. Sooo.....today we open with both a vocabulary lesson, and further proof that you are a dunce....as though further proof was necessary.

Burnishing your creds as a dunce, you wrote:
"That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread,....So you're still in avoidance mode."

a. Vocabulary for you to learn today:
a·void·ance
əˈvoidəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the action of keeping away from or not doing something. Google

Yet you claimed "That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread"


One would expect that even a ...slow....third grader would be familiar with the term 'avoidance,' and its usage.

Now....what does that reveal about you?



2. Now...as to not answering your truly dumb query directly..."five or six time"....a more perceptive individual would have caught on to the fact that I was mocking you.


3. Now, isn't this special. See...one day we'll reminisce about how awkward that this encounter between us had been before we got to know one another, and realized how swell each of us truly was.
One can only hope that you are impervious to insincerity.

Well, I saw the immediate personal insult there, so no reason to read on.

Another hole in your schtick is that you simplistically believe everyone will fall for it. Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear that you're going to avoid my direct question and rely instead on the standard avoid/pivot/attack strategy deployed by hardcore partisan ideologues on both ends of the spectrum. Amazing how similar you are to those you so loathe.

I see through your game and you know it. But if you need to keep humping my leg, go ahead.
.

"Well, I saw the immediate personal insult there, so no reason to read on."

Insult???

Revealing that you don't understand the meaning of a term you attempted to use, and teaching same, is an insult?

Nah....it's education.


Now....if you believe my post in error or unjustified....


....just don't answer any further?

See ya.'

 

[Mac1958]

Thanks, much appreciated.

Finally some intellectual honesty here.
.

Many of us are still awaiting some intellectual courage, on your part.

Can we get our hopes up???

That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread, after I asked you a clear and direct question. So you're still in avoidance mode.

I realize how much effort you put into seeming confident - in fact, I even find it a bit charming in its own way - but your schtick has some holes that need to be addressed.

If the best you can do is hit and run, there really isn't much there to work with. Such behavior is not the sign of a confident person.
.

1. Sooo.....today we open with both a vocabulary lesson, and further proof that you are a dunce....as though further proof was necessary.

Burnishing your creds as a dunce, you wrote:
"That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread,....So you're still in avoidance mode."

a. Vocabulary for you to learn today:
a·void·ance
əˈvoidəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the action of keeping away from or not doing something. Google

Yet you claimed "That's probably at least the fifth or sixth time you've posted to me on this thread"


One would expect that even a ...slow....third grader would be familiar with the term 'avoidance,' and its usage.

Now....what does that reveal about you?



2. Now...as to not answering your truly dumb query directly..."five or six time"....a more perceptive individual would have caught on to the fact that I was mocking you.


3. Now, isn't this special. See...one day we'll reminisce about how awkward that this encounter between us had been before we got to know one another, and realized how swell each of us truly was.
One can only hope that you are impervious to insincerity.

Well, I saw the immediate personal insult there, so no reason to read on.

Another hole in your schtick is that you simplistically believe everyone will fall for it. Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear that you're going to avoid my direct question and rely instead on the standard avoid/pivot/attack strategy deployed by hardcore partisan ideologues on both ends of the spectrum. Amazing how similar you are to those you so loathe.

I see through your game and you know it. But if you need to keep humping my leg, go ahead.
.

"Well, I saw the immediate personal insult there, so no reason to read on."

Insult???

Revealing that you don't understand the meaning of a term you attempted to use, and teaching same, is an insult?

Nah....it's education.


Now....if you believe my post in error or unjustified....


....just don't answer any further?

See ya.'

Okie dokie, see ya.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't see any reason for the Democrats to worry, based on the graph shown on this page:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, does two plus two usually equal four?

Just checking here!
.

You're worried about your total number of cerebral neurons???


Too late.


At least it's down to a manageable number.

I wonder why such a straightforward question has you spinning and deflecting so hard.

Oh, I'm just kidding.

I know why.
.

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

Your posts are like a sewer pipe. What comes out of them is a reliable indication of what went into them.

 

[francoHFW]

Okay, does two plus two usually equal four?

Just checking here!
.

You're worried about your total number of cerebral neurons???


Too late.


At least it's down to a manageable number.

I wonder why such a straightforward question has you spinning and deflecting so hard.

Oh, I'm just kidding.

I know why.
.

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies. DUHHHHHHH, dupe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. Seems that Trump got 46% of the vote...
"Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President"
Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President

That was in November....

2. ...and for weeks we heard this:
"Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History ..."
Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History


And they've worked hard to keep that going.


3. But.....this morning:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance."
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™


Soooo......lots who didn't vote for President Trump, over 5 million likely voters.....seem to have changed their minds.

Even with the full-court press by the the press!!!!


Democrats.....crying towels ready?

This thread needs more pics of Ann Coulter.

I'm not saying she's the sexiest thing ever, but I sure do admire her.

I hear lesbians would do her

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're worried about your total number of cerebral neurons???


Too late.


At least it's down to a manageable number.

I wonder why such a straightforward question has you spinning and deflecting so hard.

Oh, I'm just kidding.

I know why.
.

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies. DUHHHHHHH, dupe.

I asked you to find any statement by an intell agency head stating that there is any such proof.

Of course you couldn't.

Instead you tried the sort of thing that works in the second grade:
"Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies."


Now...watch this:

"Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told host Chuck Todd that he was not aware of evidence showing the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government to influence last November’s presidential election.

TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point.

Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia officials?

CLAPPER: We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was there no evidence of that including in our report.

TODD: I understand that, but does it exist?

CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

TODD: If it existed, it would have been in the report?

CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.


TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion?

CLAPPER: that’s correct."
Fmr Obama DNI Clapper: Evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion Doesn't Exist to His 'Knowledge' - Breitbart






-------------------------------------------------------------------

"While many Democrats frequently say Russia “hacked” the presidential election, National Security Administration Director Adm. Michael Rogers and FBI Director James Comey both confirmed today that Russian activities had no impact on tallying votes in states." FBI, NSA: 'No evidence' Russia manipulated US vote tallying - The American Mirror





You don't mind being caught lying again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Seems that Trump got 46% of the vote...
"Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President"
Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President

That was in November....

2. ...and for weeks we heard this:
"Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History ..."
Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History


And they've worked hard to keep that going.


3. But.....this morning:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance."
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™


Soooo......lots who didn't vote for President Trump, over 5 million likely voters.....seem to have changed their minds.

Even with the full-court press by the the press!!!!


Democrats.....crying towels ready?

This thread needs more pics of Ann Coulter.

I'm not saying she's the sexiest thing ever, but I sure do admire her.

I hear lesbians would do her

I got a chuckle out of your new avi......reminded me of this:
An American tourist in Spain goes to a restaurant and notices another guy eating some weird thing. He calls the waiter and says, "Excuse me. Can I have that same dish, please?"

The waiter says, "No sir, You can't."

He asks, "Why not?"

Waiter: "Because, sir, they are the balls of a bull."

Man: "So what? I want them!"

Waiter: "No, sir. You dont understand. Here in Spain, bullfights occur, and the balls of the bull are chopped off and supplied to our restaurant, so we get only one pair of bull's balls a day. If you like, I'll reserve the next pair for you."

Man: "Okay, I'll come back tommorow."

The next day, the man goes in and is served a pair of small balls. Outraged he asks, "What the hell is this! Yesterday's balls were much bigger!"

Waiter : You don't understand something, sir. Sometimes the bull wins."

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Perhaps there will come a time when Trump voters actually do turn on him and either vote for Democrats or don't turn out at all. So far, though, there is no actual evidence that's happening now. There is enough polling and anecdotal evidence to conclude that Trump voters have enough patience to give their candidate more than 90 days to get his agenda accomplished. They seem to have more patience than the media does in jumping to conclusions, at any rate."
There is no real evidence that Trump voters are turning on Trump

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. Seems that Trump got 46% of the vote...
"Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President"
Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President

That was in November....

2. ...and for weeks we heard this:
"Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History ..."
Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History


And they've worked hard to keep that going.


3. But.....this morning:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance."
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™


Soooo......lots who didn't vote for President Trump, over 5 million likely voters.....seem to have changed their minds.

Even with the full-court press by the the press!!!!


Democrats.....crying towels ready?

This thread needs more pics of Ann Coulter.

I'm not saying she's the sexiest thing ever, but I sure do admire her.

I hear lesbians would do her

I got a chuckle out of your new avi......reminded me of this:
An American tourist in Spain goes to a restaurant and notices another guy eating some weird thing. He calls the waiter and says, "Excuse me. Can I have that same dish, please?"

The waiter says, "No sir, You can't."

He asks, "Why not?"

Waiter: "Because, sir, they are the balls of a bull."

Man: "So what? I want them!"

Waiter: "No, sir. You dont understand. Here in Spain, bullfights occur, and the balls of the bull are chopped off and supplied to our restaurant, so we get only one pair of bull's balls a day. If you like, I'll reserve the next pair for you."

Man: "Okay, I'll come back tommorow."

The next day, the man goes in and is served a pair of small balls. Outraged he asks, "What the hell is this! Yesterday's balls were much bigger!"

Waiter : You don't understand something, sir. Sometimes the bull wins."

A surgeon, engineer and lawyer are in a bar having an argument. The Surgeon says his profession is the oldest because on the 6th Day of creation Eve was shaped from Adam's rib, the first audacious act of surgery. The engineer chuckles and replies, "It's engineering. On the 1st Day God formed order out of chaos"

The lawyer turns and say, "Yeah? who do you think created the chaos?"

 

[Votto]

1. Seems that Trump got 46% of the vote...
"Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President"
Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President

That was in November....

2. ...and for weeks we heard this:
"Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History ..."
Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History


And they've worked hard to keep that going.


3. But.....this morning:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance."
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™


Soooo......lots who didn't vote for President Trump, over 5 million likely voters.....seem to have changed their minds.

Even with the full-court press by the the press!!!!


Democrats.....crying towels ready?

What I enjoy is hearing Dims call Trump a populist as they compare him to Hitler.

Then in the same breath, they say that Trump is illegitimate cuz he lost the popular vote, making Hillary the populist instead.

Hilarious.

 

[francoHFW]

1. Seems that Trump got 46% of the vote...
"Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President"
Donald Trump, With 46 Percent of the Vote, Is the First Sore Loser to Be Elected President

That was in November....

2. ...and for weeks we heard this:
"Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History ..."
Donald Trump Is the Least Popular President-Elect in Modern History


And they've worked hard to keep that going.


3. But.....this morning:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance."
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™


Soooo......lots who didn't vote for President Trump, over 5 million likely voters.....seem to have changed their minds.

Even with the full-court press by the the press!!!!


Democrats.....crying towels ready?

This thread needs more pics of Ann Coulter.

I'm not saying she's the sexiest thing ever, but I sure do admire her.

I hear lesbians would do her

She's a pal of Maher's, no doubt another performance artist...so easy to make a bundle just by parroting BS propaganda with a straight face. Ask Trump. Luckily, now being revealed to those not totally brainwashed...

 

[francoHFW]

I wonder why such a straightforward question has you spinning and deflecting so hard.

Oh, I'm just kidding.

I know why.
.

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies. DUHHHHHHH, dupe.

I asked you to find any statement by an intell agency head stating that there is any such proof.

Of course you couldn't.

Instead you tried the sort of thing that works in the second grade:
"Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies."


Now...watch this:

"Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told host Chuck Todd that he was not aware of evidence showing the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government to influence last November’s presidential election.

TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point.

Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia officials?

CLAPPER: We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was there no evidence of that including in our report.

TODD: I understand that, but does it exist?

CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

TODD: If it existed, it would have been in the report?

CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.


TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion?

CLAPPER: that’s correct."
Fmr Obama DNI Clapper: Evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion Doesn't Exist to His 'Knowledge' - Breitbart






-------------------------------------------------------------------

"While many Democrats frequently say Russia “hacked” the presidential election, National Security Administration Director Adm. Michael Rogers and FBI Director James Comey both confirmed today that Russian activities had no impact on tallying votes in states." FBI, NSA: 'No evidence' Russia manipulated US vote tallying - The American Mirror





You don't mind being caught lying again?

We were talking about proof the RUSSIANS hacked the DEMS, not collusion, brainwashed TWIT.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies. DUHHHHHHH, dupe.

I asked you to find any statement by an intell agency head stating that there is any such proof.

Of course you couldn't.

Instead you tried the sort of thing that works in the second grade:
"Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies."


Now...watch this:

"Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told host Chuck Todd that he was not aware of evidence showing the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government to influence last November’s presidential election.

TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point.

Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia officials?

CLAPPER: We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was there no evidence of that including in our report.

TODD: I understand that, but does it exist?

CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

TODD: If it existed, it would have been in the report?

CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.


TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion?

CLAPPER: that’s correct."
Fmr Obama DNI Clapper: Evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion Doesn't Exist to His 'Knowledge' - Breitbart






-------------------------------------------------------------------

"While many Democrats frequently say Russia “hacked” the presidential election, National Security Administration Director Adm. Michael Rogers and FBI Director James Comey both confirmed today that Russian activities had no impact on tallying votes in states." FBI, NSA: 'No evidence' Russia manipulated US vote tallying - The American Mirror





You don't mind being caught lying again?

We were talking about proof the RUSSIANS hacked the DEMS, not collusion, brainwashed TWIT.

^

Brainwashed dupe calls someone else brainwashed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am going to give you an answer------> Yes polls matter, for about 10 minutes. They show a snapshot in time, nothing else. A poll can say one thing today, and with a gaff or change of wording, it can say something else next week.

The most important part of a poll is the trend, as that is more accurate then the percentage. As long as the trend is going in the direction you want, you are succeeding.

As far as the percentage, you draw a baseline; in this case the % of the vote Trump got to win. Most competent people would take 10 snapshots a week apart, average them out, and see if he is above his baseline. In this case, I do not think he is.

Hope this help you. Everyone loves to cherry pick polls, this poll, that poll, or the other poll. What they fail to watch is the trend! With a decent sample size of data points, you can usually tell what is going on. With that, let me say------------->there was NEVER a doubt that Trump would win the Presidency from Hillary, IF he could pick when the vote was. The trends showed he was constantly closing on her, but it was felt that her lead was big enough he could not catch her before November the 8th. The Democrats knew it too, trust me, I know-) So it wasn't a shocker he won, just that he was able to win in November. Unfortunately for him, that is when the election is/was. He was lucky, but then so was Obama when he faced Romney, lol. But that is a different story!

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies. DUHHHHHHH, dupe.

I asked you to find any statement by an intell agency head stating that there is any such proof.

Of course you couldn't.

Instead you tried the sort of thing that works in the second grade:
"Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies."


Now...watch this:

"Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told host Chuck Todd that he was not aware of evidence showing the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government to influence last November’s presidential election.

TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point.

Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia officials?

CLAPPER: We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was there no evidence of that including in our report.

TODD: I understand that, but does it exist?

CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

TODD: If it existed, it would have been in the report?

CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.


TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion?

CLAPPER: that’s correct."
Fmr Obama DNI Clapper: Evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion Doesn't Exist to His 'Knowledge' - Breitbart






-------------------------------------------------------------------

"While many Democrats frequently say Russia “hacked” the presidential election, National Security Administration Director Adm. Michael Rogers and FBI Director James Comey both confirmed today that Russian activities had no impact on tallying votes in states." FBI, NSA: 'No evidence' Russia manipulated US vote tallying - The American Mirror





You don't mind being caught lying again?

We were talking about proof the RUSSIANS hacked the DEMS, not collusion, brainwashed TWIT.

You can try to slither away....but, I have a forked stick, so I can immobilize you.

You claimed proof of whatever meme your masters have told you to claim....

...now this?
"proof the RUSSIANS hacked the DEMS"


And as deftly as I did earlier, I will now prove you are lying again.....and that not only has no agency head claimed such proof.....but there never....NEVER... can be any.



How about a lesson, a remedial, in cyber 'hacking':

"Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.

Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.


Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.

“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.

That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?



Get it, you dope......there is no such evidence, and no agency claims there is.

Lie again, and I'll slice and dice you again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Quinnipiac's latest poll is out.

Trump is at 40% approval with a massive -16 approve-disapprove ratio.

That's the kind of number that gives the Democrats the House in 2018.

 

[francoHFW]

Mainly 10 days after the scumbag GOP FBI director said she was being investigated- against all protocol and absolutely idiotic. Caused a 6% collapse. He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real and there was interest in Trump campaign connections, but NOOOOOO....ay caramba. Crap, with a 6% win we could have a tax hike on the bloated rich, investment in cheap training for 4-6 million tech jobs going begging, free or very cheap public and community college and college loans, a huge infrastructure bill with millions of jobs, a living wage and tax cuts for the middle class, legal and taxed pot, reform of ACA and cost regulation and higher subsidies with more competition, closing background check loopholes etc etc. So enjoy the tax cut for the rich!

" He could have said at any time that Russian hacking of Dems was real..."

But it wasn't.

Never.


Can you find any intell agency head that claimed to have proof?


Did I mention that I can spin straw into gold?

Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies. DUHHHHHHH, dupe.

I asked you to find any statement by an intell agency head stating that there is any such proof.

Of course you couldn't.

Instead you tried the sort of thing that works in the second grade:
"Every single US one, and the proof is still classified and dangerous to allies."


Now...watch this:

"Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told host Chuck Todd that he was not aware of evidence showing the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government to influence last November’s presidential election.

TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point.

Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia officials?

CLAPPER: We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was there no evidence of that including in our report.

TODD: I understand that, but does it exist?

CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

TODD: If it existed, it would have been in the report?

CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.


TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion?

CLAPPER: that’s correct."
Fmr Obama DNI Clapper: Evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion Doesn't Exist to His 'Knowledge' - Breitbart






-------------------------------------------------------------------

"While many Democrats frequently say Russia “hacked” the presidential election, National Security Administration Director Adm. Michael Rogers and FBI Director James Comey both confirmed today that Russian activities had no impact on tallying votes in states." FBI, NSA: 'No evidence' Russia manipulated US vote tallying - The American Mirror





You don't mind being caught lying again?

We were talking about proof the RUSSIANS hacked the DEMS, not collusion, brainwashed TWIT.

^

Brainwashed dupe calls someone else brainwashed.

You want a diagram? EVERY intelligence agency says they've proved the russians did it. Of course the proof is classified. Then you brainwashed fools say there's no collusion!!! Ay caramba. That has not been proved yet either way DUHHHH.