INCREDIBLE - With 90 Percent of Media Against President Trump - He Still Polls Higher Than Obama.

a reply to: 1337Kph

Did I lie? Is she in jail? Is she currently on trial? Has she been indicted? No on all those accounts. That wasn't a defense of Hillary it was just remarking on the reality of the situation at hand. Feel free to prove me wrong and show her arrest warrant issued by Trump's admin. I'll wait.

Sheesh... It seems with people like you as long as I'm not ranting unhinged about how she should be immediately in jail that I'm defending her. Since when did commenting on reality become a defense? Truth isn't partisan. It is just truth. Deny ignorance.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
When is she going to be indicted?

Q is 0/3 on Hillary going to jail predictions.

Why are you guys so obsessed with her? Do you secretly admire her?

Or did ya actually think she would be locked up? 😂😂

Re-read your post and tell me who is the obsessed one. I merely pointed the funny irony in saying "you don't care how corrupted your team is" right after defending Hillary, of all people.

Who is the one obsessed and freaking out because Hillary is mentioned? Yeah.

Q? Wtf are you even on about.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 1337Kph

Did I lie? Is she in jail? Is she currently on trial? Has she been indicted? No on all those accounts. That wasn't a defense of Hillary it was just remarking on the reality of the situation at hand. Feel free to prove me wrong and show her arrest warrant issued by Trump's admin. I'll wait.

With the same logic you could, under the same breath, say the same thing about OJ Simpson.

Unfortunately for you - Hillary and the Clintons at large are part of the most corrupted cabal the west has ever known, and no law based decision will change that.
Unfortunately for me - Corruption overrides law as can be seen everywhere.

Saying what you say is no different than a lawyer boasting about how he got a murderer free. Law worked for you, yes, but that doesn't mean you're not corrupt.

originally posted by: 1337Kph
Q? Wtf are you even on about.

Answer that question yourself.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
So...it sounds like the consensus is that everyone, here, picks and chooses what polls they believe/disbelieve or doesn't really put any stock in them, at all?

I know I don't put any stock in them...although I do think they are a great predictor of opinions, because they are so useful in influencing them.

Where did you get that crazy thought from? Pretty much everyone who is doubting the OP is pointing out how most polls show Trump's approval ratings in the dumps and this poll is an outlier. It's just basic statistical analysis. Do you not know what outliers are or something?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 1337Kph
Q? Wtf are you even on about.

Answer that question yourself.

I haven't even fully read one article or thread about Q, like ever. Sounds like total BS. Where does this put us now? Lol.
Basically, "Hillary is not in jail yet" and "Q is wrong" are your punch lines here?

originally posted by: 1337Kph

With the same logic you could, under the same breath, say the same thing about OJ Simpson.

I'm not talking about OJ Simpson.

Unfortunately for you - Hillary and the Clintons at large are part of the most corrupted cabal the west has ever known, and no law based decision will change that.
Unfortunately for me - Corruption overrides law as can be seen everywhere.

Unfortunately for me that you believe some wacko conspiracy theory about the Clintons? I see no misfortune in that whatsoever. That's between you and your own problems with reality. Not mine. I just think the Clintons aren't the best politicians for this day-and-age. I don't need crappy assumptions and lies to validate my beliefs. You do.

Saying what you say is no different than a lawyer boasting about how he got a murderer free. Law worked for you, yes, but that doesn't mean you're not corrupt.

That works both ways. It doesn't mean you ARE corrupt either.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That works both ways. It doesn't mean you ARE corrupt either.

Law wise, sure.
Reality wise? Physically destroying hard drives? Denying the FBI access? Whole Bernie primaries shenanigans?

Not out to start an argument about Hilldog's legal status now since she already got her beat down in 2016, but anyways, you simply cannot say with a straight face to someone that he doesn't care how corrupt his team is, while defending Hillary a minute ago.

So far "your team" has been rock-solid on the opinion that Trump is guilty beyond any doubts due to ... what exactly?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm not talking about OJ Simpson.

I wasn't talking about Q either, but it sure was convenient to mention him when you thought it suits your argument. Lol.
Point about OJ still stands, by the law's eyes he is absolutely innocent of murder. Reality? Tell me with a straight face you are convinced he's not guilty.

Unfortunately for me that you believe some wacko conspiracy theory about the Clintons? I see no misfortune in that whatsoever.

So I suppose you are not one of those people that mocked Trump for suggesting the elections can be rigged, only to cry later on about Russian-spy-novel interference, Russian bots, Russia collusion, etc.

originally posted by: 1337Kph
Law wise, sure.
Reality wise? Physically destroying hard drives? Denying the FBI access? Whole Bernie primaries shenanigans?

*eyeroll* I already know there is nothing I will say here that will budge you so whatever. Believe what you want. Reality be damned.

Not out to start an argument about Hilldog's legal status now since she already got her beat down in 2016, but anyways, you simply cannot say with a straight face to someone that he doesn't care how corrupt his team is, while defending Hillary a minute ago.

First off, I literally DID say that so yes I can say that. It is something I'm perfectly capable of doing. Second off, again it wasn't a defense. It was just speaking to the reality of the situation.

So far "your team" has been rock-solid on the opinion that Trump is guilty beyond any doubts due to ... what exactly?

Man... You just suck at reading my thoughts. I don't "my team" at all. I have said over and over and over and over and over and over (get the picture yet?) on ATS that I'm withholding judgment on Trump's guilt until AFTER the investigation is over. I'm me. I'm not a team. I have my own thoughts. Try to actually talk to me instead of talking to a stereotype for a change. I know its tough because its easier to just assume I'm a stupid unwoke libtard, but you just make yourself look dumb by doing this.

So I suppose you are not one of those people that mocked Trump for suggesting the elections can be rigged, only to cry later on about Russian-spy-novel interference, Russian bots, Russia collusion, etc.

Er... I have never once said the investigation was about being rigged. In fact, no liberal or anyone investigating Trump for that matter has said that. This is literally a strawman derived from purposely misunderstanding the investigation's intent spawned in right wing media and attributed to the left. Seriously, do you even care about denying ignorance anymore or as long as it confirms your biases then it is true? No questioning whatsoever?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm me. I'm not a team. I have my own thoughts. Try to actually talk to me instead of talking to a stereotype for a change.

"For a change"... Lol. You literally just told someone about "his team". Sigh nevermind.

Er... I have never once said the investigation was about being rigged.

No...no....re-read what I wrote. Or don't, it won't make much difference.
Still - point was that lots of people use the same "conspiracy nut" defense whenever something about Hillary is mentioned, while completely buying into a Russian collusion, Russian bots, and other nifty excuses for the 2016 loss that put Roswell to shame.
And yeah I don't know if you personally said that, that's why I said I supposed you're not, and not claimed you are.
The part about the election being rigged is aimed at people with this logic in mind, which suddenly turned into RUSSIA COLLUSION! NOT MY PRESIDENT!!

originally posted by: 1337Kph
"For a change"... Lol. You literally just told someone about "his team". Sigh nevermind.

Dude seriously? So you not know what context is? The guy literally said that he would support Trump no matter what the news says about him. I used his own words to make that comment.

Though you're right. Nevermind. You won't see it.

No...no....re-read what I wrote. Or don't, it won't make much difference.
Still - point was that lots of people use the same "conspiracy nut" defense whenever something about Hillary is mentioned, while completely buying into a Russian collusion, Russian bots, and other nifty excuses for the 2016 loss that put Roswell to shame.
And yeah I don't know if you personally said that, that's why I said I supposed you're not, and not claimed you are.
The part about the election being rigged is aimed at people with this logic in mind, which suddenly turned into RUSSIA COLLUSION! NOT MY PRESIDENT!!

Ok. I won't. I'll just ignore you now.

a reply to: 1337Kph

And yeah I don't know if you personally said that, that's why I said I supposed you're not, and not claimed you are.

So you admit to using a strawman fallacy.

Funny...

originally posted by: introvert
So you admit to using a strawman fallacy.

Funny...

Read;
And yeah I don't know if you personally said that, that's why I said I supposed you're not, and not claimed you are.
This is the direct quote -

originally posted by: 1337Kph
So I suppose you are not one of those people that mocked Trump for suggesting the elections can be rigged, only to cry later on about Russian-spy-novel interference, Russian bots, Russia collusion, etc.

So no, I don't admit that, but the mental gymnastics are strong here indeed.

a reply to: 1337Kph

So no, I don't admit that, but the mental gymnastics are strong here indeed.

Yet you still tried to use an argument that the other member did not make or imply.

originally posted by: introvert
Yet you still tried to use an argument that the other member did not make or imply.

Using it as an argument would be me saying "You're probably one of those guys that..." or anything in that direction.
Getting pretty pointless there.

originally posted by: 1337Kph

originally posted by: introvert
Yet you still tried to use an argument that the other member did not make or imply.

Using it as an argument would be me saying "You're probably one of those guys that..." or anything in that direction.
Getting pretty pointless there.

That would have been an assumption on your part, but not the strawman I am referring to.

Oh well.

originally posted by: 1337Kph

originally posted by: RomeByFire
When is she going to be indicted?

Q is 0/3 on Hillary going to jail predictions.

Why are you guys so obsessed with her? Do you secretly admire her?

Or did ya actually think she would be locked up? 😂😂

Re-read your post and tell me who is the obsessed one. I merely pointed the funny irony in saying "you don't care how corrupted your team is" right after defending Hillary, of all people.

Who is the one obsessed and freaking out because Hillary is mentioned? Yeah.

Q? Wtf are you even on about.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 1337Kph

Did I lie? Is she in jail? Is she currently on trial? Has she been indicted? No on all those accounts. That wasn't a defense of Hillary it was just remarking on the reality of the situation at hand. Feel free to prove me wrong and show her arrest warrant issued by Trump's admin. I'll wait.

With the same logic you could, under the same breath, say the same thing about OJ Simpson.

Unfortunately for you - Hillary and the Clintons at large are part of the most corrupted cabal the west has ever known, and no law based decision will change that.
Unfortunately for me - Corruption overrides law as can be seen everywhere.

Saying what you say is no different than a lawyer boasting about how he got a murderer free. Law worked for you, yes, but that doesn't mean you're not corrupt.

The fifth part of the mega thread is by no means an obsession, but my mere comment on it is an obsession.

I would've loved to see Hillary locked up, but I'm not an idiot, and lifelong familial pal Donald ain't gonna be locking any of the "swamp," up.

But hey ticktockticktock lol

originally posted by: RomeByFire
I would've loved to see Hillary locked up, but I'm not an idiot, and lifelong familial pal Donald ain't gonna be locking any of the "swamp," up.

So he's not going to "lock her up" because.... they both are actually on the same side? Not sure what you're suggesting but is it time for me to start calling people conspiracy nuts aswell?

But hey ticktockticktock lol

I wholeheartedly agree that the entire Tick-tock thing was bordering autism. This is your 2nd time trying to use some of this Q stuff against me. What makes you even think I'm down there?
Are you ........... *gasp* STRAWMANNING?

originally posted by: introvert
That would have been an assumption on your part, but not the strawman I am referring to.

Oh well.

Strawman you are referring to does not exist. You can clearly see how I worded that sentence and unless you're not purposely trying to, it's pretty hard not to understand it. Was a legit question (sort of) about his "wacko conspiracy nut" claims.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: carewemust

I don't like trump but everything he said he's acted on.

"LOCK HER UP!"

Sorry Mr Krazysh0t almost everything. A man can dream one day she'll go to jail

That's an odd thing to dream about. Wonder how much hate it takes to be that obsessed.

Hate? No I don't hate but better to hope for a known crook in prison rather then imaginary Russian collision.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
So...it sounds like the consensus is that everyone, here, picks and chooses what polls they believe/disbelieve or doesn't really put any stock in them, at all?

I know I don't put any stock in them...although I do think they are a great predictor of opinions, because they are so useful in influencing them.

Where did you get that crazy thought from? Pretty much everyone who is doubting the OP is pointing out how most polls show Trump's approval ratings in the dumps and this poll is an outlier. It's just basic statistical analysis. Do you not know what outliers are or something?

What does 'outlier' have to do with the OP?

Nothing. Rasmussen is comparing their own polling of Obama with their polling of Trump and Trump is doing better, at this point in his presidency, than Obama was, at the same point in his last term.

Also, the *TREND* reveals this particular poll can't be dismissed as an outlier:



AND, the fact that you are choosing to dismiss the results of this poll because you don't like it...err...think it's an outlier, is really no different than Trump supporters who throw out polls because they don't like them...err...think Democrats are oversampled.

My approval rating for Trump is 43%

I like some of what he's doing.

But some of the things he's said and done are starting to seriously piss me off.