A majority of Americans see Trump as a "dangerous dictator"

[Baztrachian]

What on Earth are you talking about? A polling sample should never be "adjusted to reflect voter turnout in the recent election." The rest of your post is simply nonsense.

Tell that to NBC:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...odels-change-nbc-news-poll-results-rcna175096

Also, your ignorance of what analyzing the internals of a poll means for the accuracy of the poll is at this point a given for me.

 

[Politruk]

This.

A majority of those polled see this claim.

The majority of a whopping 5k people. Which means up to 49% of them didn't feel this way. Which means about 2.5k people are making this claim in the poll.

From your source:

This statement heavily implies that the majority of Americans believe this when it's actually referring to only those who were polled.

Also, location, location, location!

Because where the poll was taken is relevant.

That's how polling works. The opinions of a random sample are presumed to fairly represent those of the whole populace. They have very good reasons to believe that based on the science of statistics.

And location is always nationwide unless otherwise specified.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

That's how polling works. The opinions of a random sample are presumed to fairly represent those of the whole populace. They have very good reasons to believe that based on the science of statistics.

And location is always nationwide unless otherwise specified.

Then how is Trump President?

 

[Politruk]

Then how is Trump President?

The voters did not realize in November that his second term would be even worse than his first.

Now they know.

That's about it, really.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

The voters did not realize in November that his second term would be even worse than his first.

Now they know.

That's about it, really.

More than 50% of the voting populace, Hmmm.

Define "worse."

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If only 5,397 people were polled that seems like to small of a number for an accurate poll

Most polls are based around 1500 respondents. Statistically this has proven to be an accurate sampling size.

 

[Politruk]

More than 50% of the voting populace, Hmmm.

Define "worse."

You don't need it defined, you and the whole world can see how it's worse.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Then how is Trump President?

Could it be that pesky + or - % of error?

 

[Politruk]

More than 50% of the voting populace, Hmmm.

Well, don't forget that less than 50% voted for Trump in the first place.

This poll result is only a matter of swing voters growing disillusioned.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

You don't need it defined, you and the whole world can see how it's worse.

Well yes, but actually no. My personal situation hasn't changed much for the last ... I'll be generous ... 30 years? Probably longer.

 

[Politruk]

Well yes, but actually no. My personal situation hasn't changed much for the last ... I'll be generous ... 30 years? Probably longer.

This should explain it.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

This should explain it.

I'm sure there's no political bias involved.

Do you like being able to express your opinion?

 

[Politruk]

I'm sure there's no political bias involved.

Why shouldn't there be?

 

[SebastianHolt]

Axios:

A majority of Americans say President Trump is a "dangerous dictator" who poses a threat to democracy and believe he's overstepped his authority by actions such as the mass firing of federal employees, a new survey says.

Why it matters: The wide-ranging poll released Tuesday, on Trump's 100th day in office, is the latest sign of him losing support for his immigration and economic policies — the two issues that largely fueled his election.

Zoom in: Only four in 10 Americans expressed favorable views of Trump after his first 100 days in office, according to the survey by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

• And 52% agreed with the provocative statement that Trump "is a dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy," the survey said.
• That question provided a big warning sign for Trump: Most independents (56%) agreed that Trump is a "dangerous dictator," suggesting that middle-of-the-road voters who helped put him back in office are abandoning him.

Zoom in: The survey is among those that have shown the most dissatisfaction with Trump's push for mass deportations, sweeping tariffs, more control of colleges, and firing or laying off more than 100,000 federal employees.

those American's are stupid and are like Carp (the fish) ie bottom feeders and they love being bottom feeders. give them extra money and they will waste it

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

he wants to be like from the tv streaming show man in the high castle

 

[SebastianHolt]

Axios:

A majority of Americans say President Trump is a "dangerous dictator" who poses a threat to democracy and believe he's overstepped his authority by actions such as the mass firing of federal employees, a new survey says.

Why it matters: The wide-ranging poll released Tuesday, on Trump's 100th day in office, is the latest sign of him losing support for his immigration and economic policies — the two issues that largely fueled his election.

Zoom in: Only four in 10 Americans expressed favorable views of Trump after his first 100 days in office, according to the survey by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

• And 52% agreed with the provocative statement that Trump "is a dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy," the survey said.
• That question provided a big warning sign for Trump: Most independents (56%) agreed that Trump is a "dangerous dictator," suggesting that middle-of-the-road voters who helped put him back in office are abandoning him.

Zoom in: The survey is among those that have shown the most dissatisfaction with Trump's push for mass deportations, sweeping tariffs, more control of colleges, and firing or laying off more than 100,000 federal employees.

have to call out "BULLSHIT"

 

[Wilson23]

he wants to be like from the tv streaming show man in the high castle

You mean John Smith?

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

You mean John Smith?

yup the guy who used to be in the us army then converted into a german when the allies lost world war 2 to japan and germany and they turned the east side of usa into germany and the west side of usa into japan while at the same time time turned asia into japan and europe into germany

 

[Rightguide]

That's how polling works. The opinions of a random sample are presumed to fairly represent those of the whole populace. They have very good reasons to believe that based on the science of statistics.

And location is always nationwide unless otherwise specified.

64% of Americans have positive reaction to Trump's SOTU speech: CNN poll​

In contrast, 36 percent of viewers had a somewhat or very negative response.

https://thepostmillennial.com/64-of-americans-have-positive-reaction-to-trumps-sotu-speech-cnn-poll

Poll: 75 percent of voters approve of Trump’s State of the Union​

by Jonathan Easley - 01/31/18 10:08 AM ET

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-voters-approve-of-trumps-state-of-the-union/

 

[ll74]

64% of Americans have positive reaction to Trump's SOTU speech: CNN poll​

In contrast, 36 percent of viewers had a somewhat or very negative response.

https://thepostmillennial.com/64-of-americans-have-positive-reaction-to-trumps-sotu-speech-cnn-poll

Poll: 75 percent of voters approve of Trump’s State of the Union​

by Jonathan Easley - 01/31/18 10:08 AM ET

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-voters-approve-of-trumps-state-of-the-union/

It was a shitshow of taking credit for others people's accomplishments. (Look, I'm giving them a medal ....I should get a medal too)

It didn't explain the state of the union.
It didn't provide a roadmap to reduce prices.
It was a bunch of lies about the economy.
It was a bunch of lies about foreign policy.

 

[Rightguide]

It was a shitshow of taking credit for others people's accomplishments. (Look, I'm giving them a medal ....I should get a medal too)

It didn't explain the state of the union.
It didn't provide a roadmap to reduce prices.
It was a bunch of lies about the economy.
It was a bunch of lies about foreign policy.

“It didn’t explain the state of the union.”

A State of the Union address, by definition, outlines the administration’s view of economic conditions, national security posture, legislative priorities, and institutional direction. You may disagree with the characterization, but disagreement doesn't equate to an absence of substance. If the speech covered growth rates, employment levels, border policy, military posture, and regulatory goals, then it did in fact describe what the administration considers the “state” of things. The argument would have to be that the description was inaccurate, not that there was no description. The President did say the state of the union is strong,

It didn’t provide a roadmap to reduce prices.”

A president doesn’t control prices like a store manager with a price gun. Any roadmap would necessarily involve policy levers: energy production, regulatory reduction, taxation, supply chains, trade posture, and monetary coordination. If those were addressed, even in broad strokes, that is a roadmap, whether you find it persuasive or not. You can argue feasibility. You can argue effectiveness. But “no roadmap” requires showing that there were zero policy mechanisms discussed.

“It was a bunch of lies about the economy.”

Which specific claim? GDP? Job creation numbers? Inflation trends? Wage growth? Debt levels? Trade deficits? Those are measurable metrics. If something stated contradicts publicly available data, point to the data. Otherwise, calling aggregate statistics “lies” without citation is your normal BS, not a rebuttal.

“It was a bunch of lies about foreign policy.”

Again, which claim? Deterrence posture? Alliance strength? Military readiness? Border enforcement? Aid commitments? Strategic positioning? Foreign policy assessments are often interpretive, but factual misstatements can be evaluated. If there are concrete inaccuracies, identify them. Sweeping condemnations can be an emotional release after a long burst of tears, but they don’t advance an accurate analysis. If the speech truly misrepresented reality, that should be easy to demonstrate with specific counter-evidence.

But “nothing was explained” and “everything was a lie” isn’t a critique. It’s your accumulated frustration expressed at headline volume. They don’t advance an analysis. If the speech truly misrepresented reality, that should be easy to demonstrate with specific counter-evidence. So get on it and come back with something concrete.

 

[ll74]

“It didn’t explain the state of the union.”

A State of the Union address, by definition, outlines the administration’s view of economic conditions, national security posture, legislative priorities, and institutional direction. You may disagree with the characterization, but disagreement doesn't equate to an absence of substance. If the speech covered growth rates, employment levels, border policy, military posture, and regulatory goals, then it did in fact describe what the administration considers the “state” of things. The argument would have to be that the description was inaccurate, not that there was no description. The President did say the state of the union is strong,

He didn't do that.

It didn’t provide a roadmap to reduce prices.”

A president doesn’t control prices like a store manager with a price gun. Any roadmap would necessarily involve policy levers: energy production, regulatory reduction, taxation, supply chains, trade posture, and monetary coordination. If those were addressed, even in broad strokes, that is a roadmap, whether you find it persuasive or not. You can argue feasibility. You can argue effectiveness. But “no roadmap” requires showing that there were zero policy mechanisms discussed.

Lol

“It was a bunch of lies about the economy.”

Which specific claim? GDP? Job creation numbers? Inflation trends? Wage growth? Debt levels? Trade deficits? Those are measurable metrics. If something stated contradicts publicly available data, point to the data. Otherwise, calling aggregate statistics “lies” without citation is your normal BS, not a rebuttal.

Gas prices, beef prices...etc

“It was a bunch of lies about foreign policy.”

Again, which claim? Deterrence posture? Alliance strength? Military readiness? Border enforcement? Aid commitments? Strategic positioning? Foreign policy assessments are often interpretive, but factual misstatements can be evaluated. If there are concrete inaccuracies, identify them. Sweeping condemnations can be an emotional release after a long burst of tears, but they don’t advance an accurate analysis. If the speech truly misrepresented reality, that should be easy to demonstrate with specific counter-evidence.

Ended eight wars.
Stole Venezuela oil

But “nothing was explained” and “everything was a lie” isn’t a critique

Yes it is.

. It’s your accumulated frustration expressed at headline volume. They don’t advance an analysis. If the speech truly misrepresented reality, that should be easy to demonstrate with specific counter-evidence. So get on it and come back with something concrete.

He offered nothing....just a bunch of lies and deflection to other people who have actually done something.
The US isn't in a good place.
Added trillions to the deficit
Pocketed billions directly from those who got kickbacks
Continues to add tariff taxes that do nothing.
Lose trust with trading partners and allies

That's the state of the union.

And Congress wasn't asked to do much of anything to advance his agenda....except pass an imaginary healthcare plan.

Get his cock out of your mouth.