Pat Condell explains Trump's growing popularity.

[Raglefant]

There's a little bit of that Coachy tude.....how you approached this handle from a nice guy perspective is hilarious to me.

If you could have just controlled your anger issues and made sure not to let out details, and changed your posting style, Prime may never have hunted you down.

I feel sorry for you. I realize all of this is just a cry for help as the result of a miserable and lonely life. It's probably not easy being laughed at, but you do bring it on yourself.

Let me be clear once and for all, and this is a final answer: No, I will not make out with you. I'm sorry to have to break your heart so publicly.

 

[artradley]

The polls weren't even close. They had her easily winning five or six states that she either lost or lost pretty big. The polls are worthless because 1) They tend not to talk to flyover country, or 2) You guys make suck a retarded stink about someone like Trump that people who would vote for him just don't want to put up with your bulls***, so they'll lie about who they're voting for. If you people weren't so intolerant, you would probably get a better feel for what is really going on in this country.

You're arguing facts. Finals polls had it Hillary 48.5% to Trump 44.9%. Final results was Hillary 48.2% to Trump 46.1%. And you're going to say this isn't close?

And could you list the five or six states Hillary lost that the polls had her "easily winning?"

 

[Boris_Badenov]

You're arguing facts. Finals polls had it Hillary 48.5% to Trump 44.9%. Final results was Hillary 48.2% to Trump 46.1%. And you're going to say this isn't close?

And could you list the five or six states Hillary lost that the polls had her "easily winning?"

Yeah, because they were off pretty bigly when it came to the part that counted...the states. I'm also not buying those final numbers in California that inflated her vote total two months after the election was over.

 

[artradley]

Yeah, because they were off pretty bigly when it came to the part that counted...the states. I'm also not buying those final numbers in California that inflated her vote total two months after the election was over.

So you're going to ignore my request that you provide those states?

This is all too typical of people like you, believe something is "fact" regardless of the evidence (in this case, proof) that it's not.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I feel sorry for you. I realize all of this is just a cry for help as the result of a miserable and lonely life. It's probably not easy being laughed at, but you do bring it on yourself.

Let me be clear once and for all, and this is a final answer: No, I will not make out with you. I'm sorry to have to break your heart so publicly.

It would have been funnier to use your Optometrist account to say this to me.

 

[biggreydogs]

Nice chart...do you perhaps have the stats for Obama's last two years of popularity...when he was compared to Trump? I believe he left office at over 50%...a figure this POTUS has yet to see.

Not true. Trumps highest at been 58%.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

So you're going to ignore my request that you provide those states?

This is all too typical of people like you, believe something is "fact" regardless of the evidence (in this case, proof) that it's not.

What are you talking about? Were you not paying attention during the election cycle? Or are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? Go look at Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc... Hell, they were even saying that she had a chance to win Georgia...LMFAO! You need to pull your head outta your anus, comrade.

 

[biggreydogs]

I feel sorry for you. I realize all of this is just a cry for help as the result of a miserable and lonely life. It's probably not easy being laughed at, but you do bring it on yourself.

Let me be clear once and for all, and this is a final answer: No, I will not make out with you. I'm sorry to have to break your heart so publicly.

Says the party who needs coloring books, safe places, and therapy dogs. Shall we post all the pictures of your base having meltdowns again?

 

[artradley]

Yeah, because they were off pretty bigly when it came to the part that counted...the states.

The problem is, you're using the 2016 election polls as evidence that Trump's approval ratings are not low. But his approval ratings aren't based on the electoral college; they're based on individuals. Just like the popular vote.

So the 2016 election results are evidence that polls, when gauging the mood of the entire country, are accurate.




(btw, you just listed "Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania" after I asked you to support your claim that Hillary lost 5 or 6 six states she was supposed to "win easily". You gave two; Ohio was in the Trump column and Florida was even. You still need 3 or 4 more states to support your claim. I notice that when people know facts aren't on their side they get very imprecise with the answers...)

 

[biggreydogs]

 

[Rudolph]

Yeah, because they were off pretty bigly when it came to the part that counted...the states. I'm also not buying those final numbers in California that inflated her vote total two months after the election was over.

Maybe buy this.

Trump defenders, or D haters, or whatever it is that you are, love to point to how big Trump's victory was—dominant and all, dismissing the popular vote thing along the way.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida were all vital in building Trump's coalition of states, giving him 75 electoral college votes towards his eventual total of 306. Had Clinton won these states, she would have been elected as the next US president.

In these four states, all of which voted for Obama in 2012, some 23 million people voted in total. Trump won these states, and thus the election, by a combined margin of just 227,000 - one per cent of the electorate.

Two of those four states make the very, very short list of states found to have been the most successful at executing on voter suppression strategies, strategies targeting voters who tend to vote Democrat.

I know you know this, though, at least via a general awareness, because your constant reminding people that Trump won is an attempt to solidify it in your mind as a win, because it bothers you that he kind of won and lost at the same time.

If the shoe was on the other foot, if Clinton had won the EC and Trump the popular vote, it surely would have bothered Clintonites the same way.

 

[biggreydogs]

Maybe buy this.

Trump defenders, or D haters, or whatever it is that you are, love to point to how big Trump's victory was—dominant and all, dismissing the popular vote thing along the way.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida were all vital in building Trump's coalition of states, giving him 75 electoral college votes towards his eventual total of 306. Had Clinton won these states, she would have been elected as the next US president.

In these four states, all of which voted for Obama in 2012, some 23 million people voted in total. Trump won these states, and thus the election, by a combined margin of just 227,000 - one per cent of the electorate.

Two of those four states make the very, very short list of states found to have been the most successful at executing on voter suppression strategies, strategies targeting voters who tend to vote Democrat.

I know you know this, though, at least via a general awareness, because you're constant reminding people that Trump won is an attempt to solidify it in your mind as a win, because it bothers you that he kind of won and lost at the same time.

If the shoe was on the other foot, if Clinton had won the EC and Trump the popular vote, it surely would have bothered Clintonites the same way.

Ok remove escape from NY and LA the sequel and what was the popular vote?

 

[Boris_Badenov]

The problem is, you're using the 2016 election polls as evidence that Trump's approval ratings are not low. But his approval ratings aren't based on the electoral college; they're based on individuals. Just like the popular vote.

So the 2016 election results are evidence that polls, when gauging the mood of the entire country, are accurate.




(btw, you just listed "Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania" after I asked you to support your claim that Hillary lost 5 or 6 six states she was supposed to "win easily". You gave two; Ohio was in the Trump column and Florida was even. You still need 3 or 4 more states to support your claim. I notice that when people know facts aren't on their side they get very imprecise with the answers...)

No, my point is that the polls are garbage.

Maybe buy this.

Trump defenders, or D haters, or whatever it is that you are, love to point to how big Trump's victory was—dominant and all, dismissing the popular vote thing along the way.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida were all vital in building Trump's coalition of states, giving him 75 electoral college votes towards his eventual total of 306. Had Clinton won these states, she would have been elected as the next US president.

In these four states, all of which voted for Obama in 2012, some 23 million people voted in total. Trump won these states, and thus the election, by a combined margin of just 227,000 - one per cent of the electorate.

Two of those four states make the very, very short list of states found to have been the most successful at executing on voter suppression strategies, strategies targeting voters who tend to vote Democrat.

I know you know this, though, at least via a general awareness, because your constant reminding people that Trump won is an attempt to solidify it in your mind as a win, because it bothers you that he kind of won and lost at the same time.

If the shoe was on the other foot, if Clinton had won the EC and Trump the popular vote, it surely would have bothered Clintonites the same way.

Not this broken record again. If you can't get an ID or voter registration, then that's on you.

 

[Rudolph]

Ok remove escape from NY and LA the sequel and what was the popular vote?

Exactly.

It.
Bothers.
You.

Just as it bothers Trump.

Trump won, I don't give a damn any more about that. I've moved on to being fully interested in how Trump's being Trump is affecting, and stands to affect, the US and the world.

If you would take off your jersey for a moment and really get to know our POTUS, you might start to see why people are concerned.

Here is a fairly comprehensive place to start (have fun denying it all as made up): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

If you enjoyed that, this is a fairly comprehensive article outlying Trump's current conflicts of interest: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

 

[artradley]

No, my point is that the polls are garbage.

And yet, I demonstrated you were wrong with facts. You claim to be right through declarations. No wonder you love Trump.

 

[biggreydogs]

Exactly.

It.
Bothers.
You.

Just as it bothers Trump.

Trump won, I don't give a damn any more about that. I've moved on to being fully interested in how Trump's being Trump is affecting, and stands to affect, the US and the world.

If you would take off your jersey for a moment and really get to know our POTUS, you might start to see why people are concerned.

Here is a fairly comprehensive place to start (have fun denying it all as made up): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

If you enjoyed that, this is a fairly comprehensive article outlying Trump's current conflicts of interest: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

Not really. We won. I just like pissing liberals off. Oh and winning.

 

[Rudolph]

No, my point is that the polls are garbage.



Not this broken record again. If you can't get an ID or voter registration, then that's on you.

Seems simple enough, right? What if you woke up tomorrow, went to get some beer, got carded, and suddenly a new law had been enacted while you were sleeping that required a new type of ID that you didn't have? Even though the current ID requirements were plenty sufficient for determining if you were of age?

Isn't it nice just to dismiss whatever suits the needs of your team, or your agenda?

It's kind of cute. At least it is for a 5 or 6 year-old.

 

[biggreydogs]

Exactly.

It.
Bothers.
You.

Just as it bothers Trump.

Trump won, I don't give a damn any more about that. I've moved on to being fully interested in how Trump's being Trump is affecting, and stands to affect, the US and the world.

If you would take off your jersey for a moment and really get to know our POTUS, you might start to see why people are concerned.

Here is a fairly comprehensive place to start (have fun denying it all as made up): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

If you enjoyed that, this is a fairly comprehensive article outlying Trump's current conflicts of interest: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

Oh just to help you liberals, I can give you a participation ribbon to hang on your wall in your parent's basement.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

And yet, I demonstrated you were wrong with facts. You claim to be right through declarations. No wonder you love Trump.

Sure you did, except that I actually followed the polls during the election, so I'm going to believe what I saw over what you believe happened.

Seems simple enough, right? What if you woke up tomorrow, went to get some beer, got carded, and suddenly a new law had been enacted while you were sleeping that required a new type of ID that you didn't have? Even though the current ID requirements were plenty sufficient for determining if you were of age?

Isn't it nice just to dismiss whatever suits the needs of your team, or your agenda?

It's kind of cute. At least it is for a 5 or 6 year-old.

That isn't what happened. Look, it's free to get a voter registration card, and it costs like 10 bucks to get an ID. If you can't pull that off, well then I don't have any sympathy for you.

 

[Rudolph]

Not really. We won. I just like pissing liberals off. Oh and winning.

I don't think it pisses off liberals as much as it reveals your participation here is so devoid of actual value towards constructive discourse. People try to lure you toward something better, yet you resist because you know you have little to nothing to offer.

Read those two links when you have the time.

 

[hexumhawk]

Hate to break it to you guys, but Trump's popularity, even with his core supporters, is softening. I mean you can cover your eyes to this, but that's where we're at. Trump has seen a steady decline in popularity since taking office. Even Trump knows this, which is why he's now forced to tweet about getting 48% support which really is nothing to write home about.

Support with the general public and support on policy are two total different worlds. I think you are going to see the later come around once the Russian fake outrage blows over and the economy is going gangbusters. Going to be harder for people to distance them going forward

 

[GarryO37]

That's not particularly meaningful when Obama's dips are in the same vicinity as Trump's peaks.

Actually it is meaningful. Just because you don't like facts, doesn't make the fact that Obama saw huge drops in approval rating any less meaningful.

 

[artradley]

That's not particularly meaningful when Obama's dips are in the same vicinity as Trump's peaks.

Actually it is meaningful. Just because you don't like facts, doesn't make the fact that Obama saw huge drops in approval rating any less meaningful.

I like facts. I like the fact that when Obama dipped he reached levels that Trump only attains when he peaks. Gives me a little more hope for the intelligence of our society.

 

[artradley]

And yet, I demonstrated you were wrong with facts. You claim to be right through declarations. No wonder you love Trump.

Sure you did, except that I actually followed the polls during the election, so I'm going to believe what I saw over what you believe happened.

Seems simple enough, right? What if you woke up tomorrow, went to get some beer, got carded, and suddenly a new law had been enacted while you were sleeping that required a new type of ID that you didn't have? Even though the current ID requirements were plenty sufficient for determining if you were of age?

Isn't it nice just to dismiss whatever suits the needs of your team, or your agenda?

It's kind of cute. At least it is for a 5 or 6 year-old.

That isn't what happened. Look, it's free to get a voter registration card, and it costs like 10 bucks to get an ID. If you can't pull that off, well then I don't have any sympathy for you.

You're believing what you want to believe. You're ignoring the documented facts. These aren't opinions here, there is documentation to provide proof of your claims, were they true.

But you don't provide that because, alas, your memories are incorrect. When you tried to list "five or six states" that Hillary was supposed to win easily you gave me one state that was within 1% and one state where Trump led in the polls. Because you are factually wrong.

 

[GarryO37]

I like facts. I like the fact that when Obama dipped he reached levels that Trump only attains when he peaks. Gives me a little more hope for the intelligence of our society.

I guess the point was just too much for you.

That's not surprising coming from a person who sympathizes with radical Islam.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

You're believing what you want to believe. You're ignoring the documented facts. These aren't opinions here, there is documentation to provide proof of your claims, were they true.

But you don't provide that because, alas, your memories are incorrect. When you tried to list "five or six states" that Hillary was supposed to win easily you gave me one state that was within 1% and one state where Trump led in the polls. Because you are factually wrong.

What polls are you looking at? Because I looked at multiple polls to get a base of what they're saying. I'm sure you might be able to find a single poll here and there to support your argument, but as a whole, the polls got it way wrong, just like they got BREXIT wrong.

 

[Raglefant]

I guess the point was just too much for you.

That's not surprising coming from a person who sympathizes with radical Islam.

Garry gonna Garry.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Garry gonna Garry.

Raglefant gonna drool on himself.

 

[Raglefant]

Raglefant gonna drool on himself.

Prime gonna Prime.

 

[anon_01irjibf16qqj]

How so? Explain why Trump voters are "100% of the stupid vote." It's about time you people put that pen to paper.

Edit: Maybe you can explain it for that mouth-breather, Tyler. He doesn't seem real eager to get involved in this thread.

Unlike you, I have been working all day.

I don't really give a shit to argue with you either.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Prime gonna Prime.

Unlike you, I have been working all day.

I don't really give a shit to argue with you either.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to tangle with me either.

 

[Raglefant]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to tangle with me either.

Prime gonna Prime.

 

[joelbc1]

Not true. Trumps highest at been 58%.

when? at best I have seen him barely over 50%...and it has never been that high since he took office.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I wonder if OP is in summer school this year or if he's back to the 'bees full time.

 

[artradley]

What polls are you looking at? Because I looked at multiple polls to get a base of what they're saying. I'm sure you might be able to find a single poll here and there to support your argument, but as a whole, the polls got it way wrong, just like they got BREXIT wrong.

I gave you the national poll. You made a counter claim that five or six states had Hillary winning easily where she lost. My challenge has been clear: produce a list. And you keep dancing around it, declaring that you are right but providing no supporting evidence.

Sad.

 

[biggreydogs]

when? at best I have seen him barely over 50%...and it has never been that high since he took office.

See Jan 26http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_may26

 

[Huey Grey]

Oh just to help you liberals, I can give you a participation ribbon to hang on your wall in your parent's basement.

That's very kind of you.

 

[Huey Grey]

See Jan 26http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_may26

Lol. January

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I gave you the national poll. You made a counter claim that five or six states had Hillary winning easily where she lost. My challenge has been clear: produce a list. And you keep dancing around it, declaring that you are right but providing no supporting evidence.

Sad.

I gave you four off the top of my head and you wouldn't accept them. Why would I ever continue to put forth evidence to someone who wants nothing to do with it. You live in your own little reality, comrade. Now, that's fine with me, but I'm not going to stress myself out trying to get you to accept the overall numbers when all you want to do it cherry pick one poll that you think helps to prove your point.

 

[gusto79]

I wonder if OP is in summer school this year or if he's back to the 'bees full time.

I'm sure he's killing it in high finance by now.