Would you Vote for Trump?

[Mr Spinkles]

Let's just put it this way. Demeanor at times

Okay so it's really his demeanor rather than ideas you disagree with. But Trump and Cruz vehemently disagree on a bunch of issues, don't they? Do you disagree with Cruz on all of those? For example, I believe Cruz disagrees strongly with Trump on these ideas: (1) that the federal government should use tariffs on imported goods to make US workers more competitive (vs. free trade agreements); (2) it should be easier to sue newspapers for libel; (3) we need to go back to torturing detainees; (4) temporary ban on Muslims entering the country + putting Muslim citizens in a "database"; (5) funding Planned Parenthood (I think Trump says he supports that but just not for abortions?); (6) don't take Israel's side vs. Palestine.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not what is being claimed. Approval rating is a time dependent function with many values. The last measured approval rating is not. The latter equals 20 percentage points Bush vs. Obama. It actually does tell us something meaningful about the attitude of the country that this value is 20 and not, say, 2 (or "slight" as you put it).

Another view is that this is the maximum difference over time.
Averaging, the difference is less.
But hey, some people gotta take their solace where they find it, eh?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Another view is that this is the maximum difference over time.

No that's incorrect. I get that you don't like Obama but do you think you could stop polluting the thread with careless factual inaccuracies? I get stuff wrong too sometimes, but I feel like you're just being sloppy at this point.

The maximum difference over time was ~40% in Bush's favor about 1 year into their first terms, when Bush had ~90% post-9/11 and Obama at the same point in his presidency had ~50% (or thereabouts).

The fact that Bush converted his 40 point lead into a 20 point deficit, or a swing of 60 points, is about as significant as these things can be. And it's not like Bush had an unlucky downward spike right at the end, his final approval of ~30 was the culmination of a steady, downward trend for 7 years. The more years of Bush and Obama the country experienced, the more popular Obama became relative to Bush - big time. Deny that approval ratings prove Obama was a better President if you want (I certainly agree with you there), but the difference is not "slight".

Averaging, the difference is less.

True, and interesting, but not as meaningful for the reasons stated above.

 

[Revoltingest]

No that's incorrect. I get that you don't like Obama but do you think you could stop polluting the thread.....

Geeze!
From the fella who wrests extended disagreement from every minor difference of opinion....
Don't make me post pix of my pegged irony meter, bub!
And to think how kind I've been to not talk of your falling all over yourself to defend every Dem at the expense of every Rep.....
I get no thanx for my magnanimity!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Geeze!
From the fella who wrests extended disagreement from every minor difference of opinion....

First: let us recall the parable of the kettle and the pot my friend. Second: I'll make sure not to post any obnoxious facts in the future so they don't create "extended disagreements" with so many of your posts.

 

[Revoltingest]

First: let us recall the parable of the kettle and the pot my friend. Second: I'll make sure not to post any obnoxious facts in the future so they don't create "extended disagreements" with so many of your posts.

Good....that'll help.
You're not as unreasonable as they say you are.

 

[esmith]

Okay so it's really his demeanor rather than ideas you disagree with. But Trump and Cruz vehemently disagree on a bunch of issues, don't they? Do you disagree with Cruz on all of those? For example, I believe Cruz disagrees strongly with Trump on these ideas: (1) that the federal government should use tariffs on imported goods to make US workers more competitive (vs. free trade agreements); (2) it should be easier to sue newspapers for libel; (3) we need to go back to torturing detainees; (4) temporary ban on Muslims entering the country + putting Muslim citizens in a "database"; (5) funding Planned Parenthood (I think Trump says he supports that but just not for abortions?); (6) don't take Israel's side vs. Palestine.

At the present time I do not have the time to go into this. Maybe a a later date. Right now irrigation, spring cleanup, pruning, garden, honey-do's. and a multitude of other projects preclude me from responding. In other words, I'm too damn tired when I come in at night to do anything but relax. And I don't consider engaging in political discourse as relaxing.

 

[metis]

At the present time I do not have the time to go into this. Maybe a a later date. Right now irrigation, spring cleanup, pruning, garden, honey-do's. and a multitude of other projects preclude me from responding. In other words, I'm too damn tired when I come in at night to do anything but relax. And I don't consider engaging in political discourse as relaxing.

It's called "old age".

 

[Revoltingest]

I know Trump is publicly a boor & can be abusive.
What I did not know is that privately, Hillary appears even worse.
But something in the news today alerted me to this.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

“Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.
“F— off,” she replied.

That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of “First Family Detail,” a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America’s presidents and their families — and those whom they guard.

Kessler writes flatteringly and critically about people in both parties. Regarding the Clintons, Kessler presents Chelsea as a model protectee who respected and appreciated her agents. He describes Bill as a difficult chief executive but an easygoing ex-president. And Kessler exposes Hillary as an epically abusive Arctic monster.
“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler explains. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.”
He adds: “Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi.”

Now, before her fans start decrying this as Fox News propagandistic lies,
I checked on the author (Ronald Kessler), & found him credible.
He even worked for the Washington Post, among other known or leftish organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Kessler
Who knew that Hillary is even scarier than I thought?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I know Trump is publicly a boor & can be abusive.
What I did not know is that privately, Hillary appears even worse.
But something in the news today alerted me to this.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

Now, before her fans start decrying this as Fox News propagandistic lies,
I checked on the author (Ronald Kessler), & found him credible.
He even worked for the Washington Post, among other known or leftish organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Kessler
Who knew that Hillary is even scarier than I thought?

You know the New York Post is a tabloid right?

It wouldn't shock me if Hillary was unpleasant in private but, not sure this proves it. If it was true ... therefore, Trump? The bestest, smartest unpleasant person himself?

 

[Revoltingest]

You know the New York Post is a tabloid right?

Yes.
Does this make the article untrue?
Did you read the vetting I did of the author?

It wouldn't shock me if Hillary was unpleasant in private but, not sure this proves it.

"Unpleasant" sounds so benign compared to what Secret Service types say.

If it was true ... therefore, Trump? The bestest, smartest unpleasant person himself?

That should be "If it were true"

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes.
Does this make the article untrue?

Appearing in a tabloid makes the article not worth reading.

Did you read the vetting I did of the author?

Yes. Your vetting doesn't tell me what he said about Hillary, so far only your tabloid article does that.

"Unpleasant" sounds so benign compared to what Secret Service types say.

Really? Please provide a source other than a tabloid.

That should be "If it were true"

Even if I think it very well could be true?

 

[Revoltingest]

Appearing in a tabloid makes the article not worth reading.

Convenient for you.

Yes. Your vetting doesn't tell me what he said about Hillary, so far only your tabloid article does that.
Really? Please provide a source other than a tabloid.
Even if I think it very well could be true?

I don't think anything I could provide would convince you that Hillary is anything less than a saint.
Consider....
Only a tabloid or anti-Dem source would publish such a thing.
But you'd not be inclined to read such material.
Sources you'd likely find palatable, ie, Pro-Hillary & respectable (stodgy) sources wouldn't cover such things.
And I doubt the book itself would be available for free on line.
So this isn't something which inspires me to try to convince you is cromulent.
I just ran across it & found it interesting.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Convenient for you.

Yes not reading tabloids is convenient for me and those who concern themselves about things like facts.

I don't think anything I could provide would convince you that Hillary is anything less than a saint.

I don't particularly like Hillary (but voting for her enthusiastically if Trump is the alternative). But I am curious to know if it's true that she was horrible to her Secret Service detail and so far I've been unable to know that based on what you have posted.

Consider....
Only a tabloid or anti-Dem source would publish such a thing.
But you'd not be inclined to read such material.
Sources you'd likely find palatable, ie, Pro-Hillary & respectable (stodgy) sources wouldn't cover such things.
And I doubt the book itself would be available for free on line.
So this isn't something which inspires me to try to convince you is cromulent.
I just ran across it & found it interesting.

I find it interesting too. I wish I could tell if it [were?] true. That's quite a dilemma that you can't provide reputable sources for your claim, I guess I'll have to either choose to believe what's in tabloids or persist in not knowing about the nuggets of truth they contain.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes not reading tabloids is convenient for me and those who concern themselves about things like facts.

I don't particularly like Hillary (but voting for her enthusiastically if Trump is the alternative). But I am curious to know if it's true that she was horrible to her Secret Service detail and so far I've been unable to know that based on what you have posted.

I find it interesting too. I wish I could tell if it [were?] true. That's quite a dilemma that you can't provide reputable sources for your claim, I guess I'll have to either choose to believe what's in tabloids or persist in not knowing about the nuggets of truth they contain.

You find Kessler's work not reputable because it was covered in a tabloid.
I looked into his background, & found him credible, so I then posted the article on this aspect of his work.
(Aside from his many books, he worked for Wash Po, WSJ, & other non-tabloids per the link I gave.)
Believe it or don't....I posted it because I found it cromulent & interesting.

 

[fantome profane]

I know Trump is publicly a boor & can be abusive.
What I did not know is that privately, Hillary appears even worse.
But something in the news today alerted me to this.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

Now, before her fans start decrying this as Fox News propagandistic lies,
I checked on the author (Ronald Kessler), & found him credible.
He even worked for the Washington Post, among other known or leftish organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Kessler
Who knew that Hillary is even scarier than I thought?

So if this is true what you are saying is that one of these two candidates has enough intelligence and self control to to act properly in public, and one does not.

 

[Augustus]

So if this is true what you are saying is that one of these two candidates has enough intelligence and self control to to act properly in public, and one does not.

To play devil's advocate: spun differently it could also mean one of them is dishonest, cynical, media-managed fraud and the other one is not*.

*Not could also be replaced with 'a total ****' and then it would be pretty accurate overall

 

[Revoltingest]

So if this is true what you are saying is that one of these two candidates has enough intelligence and self control to to act properly in public, and one does not.

I don't think intelligence is indicated by such behavior in either.
Moreover, I couldn't say which is worse in a president.
Is a publicly repressed but privately abusive individual really better than being somewhat the opposite?
It's interesting, but not a vote changer for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

To play devil's advocate: spun differently it could also mean one of them is dishonest, cynical, media-managed fraud and the other one is not*.
*Not could also be replaced with 'a total ****' and then it would be pretty accurate overall

At first, I didn't know which one you referred to.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You find Kessler's work not reputable because it was covered in a tabloid.

No I didn't read the article you posted because it was from a tabloid. I don't have an opinion on Kessler's work because you haven't provided a non-tabloid way to read about his work.