After “treason week” Trump’s poll numbers are up.

[NZ Poke]

The neurotic, hysterical media screeching and “reeeee-ing” actually increased Trump’s approval ratings.

Based on the last two years, this was completely predictable.

A possible takeaway? The mainstream media needs some serious diversity, quickly.

 

[Alpha Poke]

It’s really an amazing study in human behavior. The resistance has to completely burn itself out at this point, sacrificing several election cycles.

The Trump as Dangerfield in Caddyshack is nails.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

View embedded media

The Trump as Dangerfield in Caddyshack is nails.

Spot on.

 

[osu_orangestreak]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-wsj-poll-trump-stronger-base-weaker-middle-n893601

@syskatine this is your reality.

Up from June. Highest ever polling among registered Republicans.

Translation - he’s taken over the GOP from the neocons and the #walkaway’s are adding up.

Also - >1% of voters care about Russia according to Gallup.

But he is losing the middle, not good for 2020

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

But he is losing the middle, not good for 2020

But who will he lose them to?

 

[Medic007]

But he is losing the middle, not good for 2020

According to a poll. He had literally no chance of winning in 2016 according to most polls. I wouldn't be shocked if many of Trump's supporters simply don't respond to polls.

 

[07pilt]

He had literally no chance of winning in 2016 according to most polls.

That's not what literally means.

 

[NZ Poke]

Video:

“Elite” media figures and pollsters (who earn millions of dollars to read teleprompters) confidently predicting a Hillary Clinton “landslide.”

These same figures and networks promised we’d find WMDs in Iraq (dutifully reporting Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenant’s talking points) — and ensured us that taking out Saddam would be “good for the American people.”

Listen to their words:

 

[Medic007]

That's not what literally means.

Bitch to the dictonary people and English teachers. I'm literally sticking with it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally

1: in a literal sense or manner: such as
a : in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression

• He took the remark literally.

• a word that can be used both literally and figuratively

b —used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description

• The party was attended by literally hundreds of people.

c : with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactly

• The term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French.

d : in a completely accurate way

• a story that is basically true even if not literally true

2: in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

• will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice
• —Norman Cousins

See literally defined for English-

1In a literal manner or sense; exactly.

‘the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout’

‘tiramisu, literally translated ‘pull-me-up’’

1. 1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true.
   ‘I was literally blown away by the response I got’

 

[Rdcldad]

I've been in Iowa for the past nine days. (Still here through Sat.). This has been the most truthful thing I've heard from the various people I've spoken with. They aren't happy with Trump because the tarriffs significantly impact their soybean crops, but everyone has said that he's the only choice because the Dems have shifted so far left. Hard working farmers don't relate to the 'victim'-coddling agenda that the left has shifted towards.

you ask for a miracle i give you the
eeef beee eyeee

 

[trapped_in_tx]

That's not what literally means.

Didn't you know? This is the age of hyperbole - all adjectives/adverbs are now redefinable to ensure I am making a more bombastic statement than the other chucklehead.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

you ask for a miracle i give you the
eeef beee eyeee

View embedded media

Gotta love dat corporate welfare !!!

 

[HighStickHarry]

Bitch to the dictonary people and English teachers. I'm literally sticking with it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally

1: in a literal sense or manner: such as
a : in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression

• He took the remark literally.

• a word that can be used both literally and figuratively

b —used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description

• The party was attended by literally hundreds of people.

c : with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactly

• The term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French.

d : in a completely accurate way

• a story that is basically true even if not literally true

2: in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

• will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice
• —Norman Cousins

See literally defined for English-

1In a literal manner or sense; exactly.

‘the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout’

‘tiramisu, literally translated ‘pull-me-up’’

1. 1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true.
   ‘I was literally blown away by the response I got’

I am not having this at all. You made up that photoshopped emphasis part.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

 

[Medic007]

I am not having this at all. You made up that photoshopped emphasis part.

You cannot prove that.

 

[Alpha Poke]

What class was he at Hogwarts?

 

[Rdcldad]

his twitter screams should have stayed in the shadows

there is no doubt in my mind his moral compass spins like a top

he gives me this visceral ick factor, much like the tds folks get from trump

the difference is he cloaks himself in patriotism, trump is out there for you to see

brennon is bad news for democracy

 

[imprimis]

his twitter screams should have stayed in the shadows

there is no doubt in my mind his moral compass spins like a top

he gives me this visceral ick factor, much like the tds folks get from trump

the difference is he cloaks himself in patriotism, trump is out there for you to see

brennon is bad news for democracy

Communists are bad news for democracy.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

his twitter screams should have stayed in the shadows

there is no doubt in my mind his moral compass spins like a top

he gives me this visceral ick factor, much like the tds folks get from trump

the difference is he cloaks himself in patriotism, trump is out there for you to see

brennon is bad news for democracy

That face of his is indicative of a lot these days.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

 

[07pilt]

debunked.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Communists are bad news for democracy.

So, you aren’t in favor of CORNporate bailouts?

 

[SoonerRedYukon101]

debunked.

Bill Clinton received his $500,000 speaking fee and the Clinton Foundation received over $140 million. And the Russians got their uranium from the United States. The quid pro quo may never be proven, but it has certainly not been debunked.

 

[07pilt]

Bill Clinton received his $500,000 speaking fee and the Clinton Foundation received over $140 million. And the Russians got their uranium from the United States. The quid pro quo may never be proven, but it has certainly not been debunked.

That's not true. We just went over this earlier this week.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

debunked.

by?

 

[aix_xpert]

So, you aren’t in favor of CORNporate bailouts?

I'm not personally. But no one cared about Solantra, GM, or the other dozen times the government has done it. So why care now?

 

[07pilt]

by?

Me, previously this week or last and then another time about year back.

 

[07pilt]

I'm not personally. But no one cared about Solantra, GM, or the other dozen times the government has done it. So why care now?

No one cared? I seem to remember a lot of people caring.

Solyndra got a loan guarantee, and GM had to give up equity for their bailouts. What are these farmers giving up?

 

[aix_xpert]

No one cared? I seem to remember a lot of people caring.

Solyndra got a loan guarantee, and GM had to give up equity for their bailouts. What are these farmers giving up?

GM didn't give up shit to anyone but its shareholders, who were hung out to dry. Its reliable Union members (aka Dem Voters) were fully protected. Its leadership got 24k parachutes. Solyndra's CEO got a fat paycheck (lightened by a donation to the DNC), a bankruptcy slip, and the US got the bill. So if we give a little to the US farmers to subsidize them while we negotiate better trade deals, so be it. I frankly don't see much difference.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

No one cared? I seem to remember a lot of people caring.

Solyndra got a loan guarantee, and GM had to give up equity for their bailouts. What are these farmers giving up?

Farmers won't accept the money, Republicans don't believe in handouts.

 

[07pilt]

GM didn't give up shit to anyone but its shareholders, who were hung out to dry. Its reliable Union members (aka Dem Voters) were fully protected. Its leadership got 24k parachutes. Solyndra's CEO got a fat paycheck (lightened by a donation to the DNC), a bankruptcy slip, and the US got the bill. So if we give a little to the US farmers to subsidize them while we negotiate better trade deals, so be it. I frankly don't see much difference.

No it is an actual fact that GM had to give up equity for it's bail out.
If solyndra got such a good deal maybe the farmers would be satisfied by just a loan guarantee.

 

[JimmyBob]

No one cared? I seem to remember a lot of people caring.

Solyndra got a loan guarantee, and GM had to give up equity for their bailouts. What are these farmers giving up?

Squealing pigs that breed and vote Dem.

 

[imprimis]

GM didn't give up shit to anyone but its shareholders, who were hung out to dry. Its reliable Union members (aka Dem Voters) were fully protected. Its leadership got 24k parachutes. Solyndra's CEO got a fat paycheck (lightened by a donation to the DNC), a bankruptcy slip, and the US got the bill. So if we give a little to the US farmers to subsidize them while we negotiate better trade deals, so be it. I frankly don't see much difference.

It was the GM bondholders who got screwed when they should have received a sizeable portion of GM. Obama didn't want that because it was likely the union would have been significantly downgraded.

 

[aix_xpert]

No it is an actual fact that GM had to give up equity for it's bail out.
If solyndra got such a good deal maybe the farmers would be satisfied by just a loan guarantee.

Did Solyndra or the US Government payback that loan? They were already nearly insolvent as a company and we chose to give them that money anyway, knowing full well that it was never being paid back by the company. So yes it was a 'loan guarantee' in name, but anyone with 2 cents of intelligence knows it was nothing more than a check to a policy supporter. Much like what Trump is doing for the farmers.

BTW, I'm against Trump doing this. Just find it strange that the Dems disapprove of this after silently watching Obama spend 8 years selectively doling out corporate welfare checks to companies whose management were reliable DNC donors.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I'm against Trump doing this. Just find it strange that the Dems disapprove of this after silently watching Obama spend 8 years selectively doling out corporate welfare checks to companies whose management were reliable DNC donors.

Bingo!

 

[07pilt]

Did Solyndra or the US Government payback that loan? They were already nearly insolvent as a company and we chose to give them that money anyway, knowing full well that it was never being paid back by the company. So yes it was a 'loan guarantee' in name, but anyone with 2 cents of intelligence knows it was nothing more than a check to a policy supporter.

That's not true. Solyndra had promising technology, they were just victims of market vicissitude when the price of polysilicon (the cost driver of the competing technology) tanked 89%.

BTW, I'm against Trump doing this. Just find it strange that the Dems disapprove of this after silently watching Obama spend 8 years selectively doling out corporate welfare checks to companies whose management were reliable DNC donors.

I am fully for Trump helping people instead of hurting them. I just don't like the revisionist history.

 

[aix_xpert]

That's not true. Solyndra had promising technology, they were just victims of market vicissitude when the price of polysilicon (the cost driver of the competing technology) tanked 89%.


I am fully for Trump helping people instead of hurting them. I just don't like the revisionist history.

We'll agree to diagree. I understand that you are spouting the public narrative. However, the timelines don't match well. When the loan was provided Polysilicon was already dropping in costs, and the supposed lower installation costs had no factual basis. It was simply a marketing ploy. Less than 6 months after the loan infusion, PWC was questioning if they were even a solvent business. They only delayed layoffs in early 2010 on the request of the President himself as they didn't want that story going into the midterms. Fact is we gave them a loan guarantee under one of two pretenses: 1) Obama and his economic advisors were incompentent bozos who failed to do any measurable diligence prior to providing the loan guarantee or 2) They were supporting their donor ally knowing the money wasn't coming back.

But this is irrelevant to the actual message. Fact is, Obama (and other past presidents) have gladly given subsidies, bailouts and other assistance to corps, industries and groups for varying reasons. Yet now that Trump proposes the same, people are up in arms about it.

 

[07pilt]

We'll agree to diagree. I understand that you are spouting the public narrative. However, the timelines don't match well. When the loan was provided Polysilicon was already dropping in costs,

As we all know when the price of something drops, it is bound to never return to previous highs and to plummet 89%

Fact is we gave them a loan guarantee under one of two pretenses: 1) Obama and his economic advisors were incompentent bozos who failed to do any measurable diligence prior to providing the loan guarantee or 2) They were supporting their donor ally knowing the money wasn't coming back.

Or 3) they were using ARRA funds incredibly efficiently.
How exactly is loan guarantee to a failing company a payoff to a donor?

 

[Medic007]

How exactly is loan guarantee to a failing company a payoff to a don

I don't think the original loan guarantee was the issue. I recall the restructuring of the loan was the issue. Obama officials worried about the effect the optics of Solyndra closing would have on Obama's reelection campaign. Bad deal for taxpayers to start with, worse deal for taxpayers in the restructuring.

In the restructuring, Argonaut Ventures (an investment vehicle of George Kaiser Family Foundation) and Madrone Partners were prioritized for payback before the government would receive any money in bankruptcy proceedings. George Kaiser was a large donor and fundraiser for Obama and frequently visited the White House. At best the prioritization of Argonaut in the restructuring was terrible optics.

 

[07pilt]

In the restructuring, Argonaut Ventures (an investment vehicle of George Kaiser Family Foundation) and Madrone Partners were prioritized for payback before the government would receive any money in bankruptcy proceedings. George Kaiser was a large donor and fundraiser for Obama and frequently visited the White House. At best the prioritization of Argonaut in the restructuring was terrible optics.

Argonaut and Madrone loaned $75 million to a company on life support so that it complete its factory, of course that $75 million was going to be senior to the $535 million.