News Donald Trump's Popularity To Date

[lostforgottensoul]

In this state, if you have no income, health care is nearly free.

It is here in Florida as well unless you are married with a spouce that just happens to get a VA pention and SS, then regardless of what you can actually afford, its well into the hundreds of dollars a month and the deducticable insane. It was all higher than i paid on Cobra and thats insurence straight out.

My group insurence changed because of ObamaCare and now costs me over $500 a year more.

Here, unemployment is definitely down. Lots of jobs in the papers.

Where do you live? (Dont answer that, wasnt really a question). Florida sucks, has always sucked and will always suck, I get that but i grew up in this god forsaken state so i can safetly say that jobs here are about half or less then what they were in the early 2000s and wages are laughable at this point and if you're just damn unlucky enough to be single and living on a single income, forget about it without 3 jobs. It has always been that way but what hasnt always been in no merit (price of living) raises and my rent for an 850 sq ft apartment is almost now 900 a month which back in the early 2000s was what one could rent a house for. And im told by my apartment complex that rent is so high in apartments because the house market has taken a dump and everyone is now renting thus they are doing it because they can.

Add a shitload more shootings and yeah, I want to move to another country at this point. Seriously, something im considering, which is sad being once upon a time i was very proud of the red, white, and blue.

We need a change, and a big one. Which candidate (Trump or Clinton) can get us there? Neither in my opinion. Im wondering which will hurt us less?

ETA: Sorry at @joeylittle, cross posted with you. Im more in a disgust of where our country is and how we got there. A President (take Bush Jr) is easy targets to throw stones at. I dont dislike Obama as a person. Just dont think he makes a good President but if it were Obama, Trump, Clinton; Id pick Obama!

 

[scout86]

I lived in Florida for a couple years. Of all the places I've lived (and there are a number) that's the only one I'd rather not go back to.

Here's a thought for you. The president who ushered in that "Golden Age" of the early 2000's was a Clinton. The economy tanked with a Bush. But I think it's more complicated than what it's fair to blame a president for. (But I, personally agree, I'd rather have another Obama term than either Clinton or Trump.)

I don't think we've done a very good job of sorting out the problems with the economy and I think it would take cooperation to solve them. My real concern is that this hasn't been happening because the people who pay for political campaigns also benefit from low wages. And, near as I can tell, Trump is one of "them", no matter what he says.

 

[EveHarrington]

Trumps numbers are plummeting as some polls have him down by double digits!

<throws hands in the air and screams YAAAAY! while running around lol>

What happens when a narcissist has his derrière handed to him on a platter? We'll see that in only 96 days........

 

[Justmehere]

The Harvard Repiblican Club, for he first time in its 128 year history, will not be endorsing The Republican nominee for president.

They went a step toward further and they have issued a sound denunciation of Trump. It is actually very positive about the country while expression concerns about Trump. It's on FB, but publically viewable without logging in. https://m.facebook.com/HarvardGOP/?__tn__=C

It's a stunning read.

"If enacted, Donald Trump’s platform would endanger our security both at home and abroad. Domestically, his protectionist trade policies and draconian immigration restrictions would enlarge our federal deficit, raise prices for consumers, and throw our economy back into recession. Trump’s global outlook, steeped in isolationism, is considerably out-of-step with the traditional Republican stance as well...."

One of the things they touch on is how dangerous it would be to withdraw from NATO.

Then there was an article by Erick Ericson at the Resurgent, which was written with a lot of passion. He later apologized for the title, for which he basically told people supporting Trump to go to hell for saying we should withdraw from NATO. Yeah. Not ok. I do not condone this and to Erick's credit, he later apologized for that part of his article rather profusely. All the same, I won't post it here but anyone can google for it using "Erick Erickson Resurgent NATO" and the article should come up if you care to read it directly. It's a tough read. Again, telling Trump supporters to go to hell is horrible. I can agree with many Trump supporters that NATO members should honor their financial agreements, or change what they have agreed too, but I haven't seen enough reason to have NATO dissolved or to not honor our agreement to NATO. If we do what Trump wants, we will destroy our ability to ever enact a worthwhile treaty and have anyone think we will follow through on our agreements - something that is already on shaky ground. Still this isn't cause to use insulting language towards those who support Trump.

Just as there is some value in understanding why some Trump supporters are angry, there is value in understanding why this Republican author was so angry too.

He wrote about the one time article 5 of NATO's treaty agreement was enacted and members came to the defense of an ally:

Sept 11, 2001.

On that day, when we didn't know what was happening or why, when we were still in shock from the loss of over 3,000 lives, NATO forces protected American airspace here and abroad.

They came to our aid.

 

[UniqueSunflower]

About a month ago, Donald Trump's lawyer, the man who Trump hired to advise and represent him on lega...

I have wondered if there's an element of citizens being desensitized to his lack of insight, inappropriate behaviors, comments, and demeanor. It seems it could also be an indication of a huge decline in our nations values when people have become tolerant of someone who bullies and doesn't have any respect for other human beings. It's a tragedy and I can only hope people will use their better judgement at the polls.

 

[Justmehere]

Trump's ties to America Mafia are coming to surface to a wider audience:

Dead Link Removed

 

[lostforgottensoul]

@Justmehere, i was just advised here https://www.myptsd.com/threads/clinton-vs-trump.64040/page-4#post-1058106 that washington times is a propaganda outlet.

Is it? I dont know but its best to weed out crap and this sounds like crap if you ask me. Just my opinion though, I dont have any facts to back that up, just sounds that way to me is all.

ETA: My bad, Washington Times, Washington Post. Didnt see that. Is it different or the same thing? Just like to know my outlets.

Still sounds rather BS-ish to me.

 

[joeylittle]

My bad, Washington Times, Washington Post. Didnt see that. Is it different or the same thing? Just like to know my outlets.

Yes. The Washington Post is a pretty established and respected newspaper. Like all mainstream press, they will be accused of having a bias to the left or the right, depending on the topic. Currently, they have been blacklisted by Trump.

The Washington Times identifies itself as a conservative publication; meaning, everything will be leaning hard towards the conservative viewpoint.

The best way to tell what you are reading is to scroll down to the bottom and look for the 'about' section, and click on it. You'll find a short piece encapsulating the mission of the site that you are on. If they specifically have a liberal or conservative, left or right mission - take that into account. If they claim to be independently funded and non-partisan, cross-check that claim with a google search.

It's sometimes a never-ending tunnel, because there are sites that exist purely to accuse other sites of having no integrity. But a combination of looking at the mission, the funding, and the kinds of things they post, will generally give you a solid base to work from.

As a news site, CNN is the one generally considered to be the most balanced. This means, they will support both voices equally; but you still need to consider who is commenting, and what their stance is. Factcheck.org is pretty reliable and has a useful format. Politifact.com leans conservative and is a little more sensationalist in their format, but has reliable information.

And if something reads like it's a huge deal, but you can't find it covered by any news site that you recognize? Usually means it's propaganda, to one side or the other.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Thanks @joeylittle! That's awesome information!

Yeah, i wrote that and then saw "post" instead of "times" and was like oops lol.

Yeah, I like CNN the best of the 3. I do like to switch between all 3 but usually land on CNN.

 

[joeylittle]

Fox is conservative; MSNBC is liberal. CNN tries it's best to stay in the middle and represent both.

 

[Justmehere]

I'm so glad you are thinking about media sources critically @lostforgottensoul! I wish more people did that.

This is a long winded way to explain this, and feel free to skip over if too wordy.

There are media outlets engaged what is like yellow journalism with a propogantist twist. Washington *Times* is one of them. There are many others.

Then there are media outlets with a strong overt bias. I would put Brietbart (biased towards Trump) and The Resurgent (biased against Trump). Both do not hide their bias at all, and have outright been clear who they don't support. Huffington Post is in that category as well. They put disclaimers at the bottom - or at least they used to put them, about what their opinion of Trump has been.

There are those that make an effort to be more balanced, but have been burned by Trump so many times they are somehwat naturally against Trump, like the Washingtion Post. The Washington Post is a very conservative media outlet and tends to lean right. Trump tries to tell everyone they are awful, but if any outlet was to be on his side, the WashIngton Post would be one of them. It's part of why it's so stunning that he kicks them out of public events.

There's also media sources that claim they are fact checkers but are biased like Snopes and others. I use these carefully. As a way to find more info, but not always the unbiased single place of all truth on a matter.

Then there are outright fake media outlets that pretend to be real. They tend to have names close to more legit media outlets like abcnews123... (Made this up as an example) It looks almost like that ABC news... But isn't really. Their sites tend to look like click bait. Washington Times isn't that bad, but close to it.

Then there is true satire like Onion and Bayblonian Bee. All fake, but sometimes makes important arguments about what is actually true by being so overtly false.

Then there overt commentary sources, blogs, etc.

All this is to say this: it's not so much about avoiding "propaganda" and bias. It's an easy way to utterly dismiss an argument to say oh that's all biased or that's all propaganda or the media never gets it right. (This is not in reference to that post in the other thread, but what happens a lot in life when discussing media and poltics.) It's important to recognize and help share info and opinion about the credibility of a source. It's also important to not throw the baby out with the bath water either. (Not saying anyone is doing that, just a general caution when people say that's just the "lamestream media.".)

It's sometimes possible to have very biased sources actually give factual info, and to find ways to separate the opinions from the fact.

When reading media sources, I stick with what I have been able to verify with at least 3 relatively reliable sources. I'll search media for and against Trump to see who is reporting it and what is being reported too. Sometimes a source has biased opinion, but includes a full video of the event itself - so then I can make up my own mind.

These days, Trump has so many against him, it is getting harder to find people who support him AND are also willing to report what is negative about him. Also hard to find people against Trump willing to report the positives about Trump. This is a uniquely Trump phenomenon for it to happen to the degree that it is happening. Those outlets that are highly pro Cruz or Hillary seem to be willing to report negative news about them much more than those that are pro Trump reporting the negatives about Trump. (They are all human candidates, there are downsides to all.) One of the things I consider when evaluating the credibility of s site is their willingness to report the negative side about someone. CNN and the BBC are two good sources that I can see some bias but are willing to report negative and positive about all the major candidates. (Those from the UK tend to feel differently about the BBC on their own national poltics though.)

It is also true that there is a lot more overt bad coming to surface about Trump and he tends to stick himself out there so much more than Clinton.

The Mafia connections are not new. They have been well verified and extensively reported on for years. From CNN last summer: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/trump-mob-mafia/

Various European media outlets have reported on them like the BBC and The Independent. Long before Trump was even a candidate - so political leanings really are not as much a factor in this issue. ***Many were reporting mafia connections back when Trump was a clear democrat and not running for political office.*** So a left leaning bias for Hillary would have favored Trump, and even then, they reported about the mafia connections.

Even more so, Trump doesn't really deny it. He tends to walk out and throw a fit when questioned about it. He has for years. I have yet to see anything where he consistently and credibly denies the connections that so many others verify.

Plus, the legal system has determined that even without mob connections, there is enough evidence to put Trump on trial for racketeering and fraud for how he ran Trump Univeristy.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Thanks for all the info @Justmehere! Im always critical about a source unless, like you said, i can back it up with a few other crediable sources.

I research everything. Its just what i do. Ive never found it this hard to find facts before. I know elections are all full of BS and its harder to weed through to facts then other stuff but it has never been this hard.

I was just reading something about Glen Beck on The Huffington Post that was pure BS though ive never known them to run almost like tabloid stuff. Maybe not fully accurate or lean one way or the other but just pure tabolid like BS. And thats was just random shit i was researching. It had nothing to do with the election and was years ago.

Im finding way more tabolid like fake shit then ever before. Its rather frustrating.

But thanks for all the info! I am finding these threads so useful as folks tend to back up their facts with credable sources (though i still go research and try to find it on other sites) but most info on here have been very good useful info!