Slashdot Mirror

Trump's value is falling faster than anycoin ever.

Interesting that you'd write that. Rasmussen just today released poll results that shows Trump's approval is ahead of Obama's at the same point in Obama's presidency. http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

I've not heard of Rasmussen, but I've heard that Trump's going to prison. Most Bitcoin owners will also be going to prison eventually as they tend to have extremely unsavoury extra-curricular interests which inevitably bring them into conflict with decent people, such as paedophilia and libertarianism.

Trump's value is falling faster than anycoin ever.

Interesting that you'd write that. Rasmussen just today released poll results that shows Trump's approval is ahead of Obama's at the same point in Obama's presidency. http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Only because Putin's bitch said that he wasn't going to pardon Fixer Cohen.

Trump's value is falling faster than anycoin ever.

Interesting that you'd write that. Rasmussen just today released poll results that shows Trump's approval is ahead of Obama's at the same point in Obama's presidency. http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

pure Trumpism. WTF? How did this become acceptable?

"Trumpism" may not be acceptable in your circles, but the President's approval ratings are steadily hovering around 50%. He is "acceptable".

How are Americans holding themselves up over indigenous cultures?

Comfortably and confidently, thank you for asking.

The same media that so easily drives you and the rest of the weak minded into terrified frenzies of paranoid, xenophobic outrage every time Trump scratches his nuts has been almost completely tuned out be the rest of the country. The media in general has a 14% trustworthiness rating among conservatives and a 37% rating among independents, and CNN specifically has a 33% trustworthiness rating among its own viewers. They went full-"Literal Hitler" in the first week of his candidacy and no one on the right ever listened to them again. Absolutely *none* of the fake, apocalyptic outrage spewed forth over every retarded """scandal""" from Megyn Kelly to Gonzo Curiel to Khzir Khan to Pussygate to Pissgate to Flynn to Charlottesville to Manafort to Wolff to Shitholegate to Children In Cages to Helsinki ever moved his poll numbers a millimeter. All it's ever done is drive the left further and further into its hateful, irrational rage, which - if you can believe it - is a big part of Trump's PR strategy and has been from the start.

Yet CNN clings to "The most trusted name in news" despite polls showing them being the least trusted and in fact having only a 33% trustworthiness rating among its own viewers.

Those two articles say very different things. The first one puts him at 50% a month ago (compared to Obama at 49% from the same poll). The second looks at more polls and puts him at 43% (compared to 49% with the same method). Plus he's been trending equal or negative since April (according to The poll you cited).

...
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-...

I'm not making it up.

On the one hand, CNN is useful for Trump because they're his biggest (unwitting) allies in his war against the media. On his own he could never damage them as much as they damage himself. All he has to do is egg them on every now and then with a tweet or two.

On the other hand, CNN is anything but alone in this position, so they're expendable in that regard.

Fun fact: Only 33% of CNN's own viewers trust CNN. (as of january anyway)

I keep hearing these arguments, but have not seen any evidence to back them up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Shh, don't interrupt them. They're busy flushing what little credibility or illusion of impartiality they have left down the toilet.

Fun fact: 67% of CNN's own viewers don't trust CNN.

Fox has been biased over the years, but the conflict between the corporatist republicans (and Roger Ailes) and the Trump republicans has ironically kept them relatively honest over the last year+. CNN otoh has gone from unbiased (yet embarassing) to being openly seditious. Trump deliberately eggs them on because they either don't know they're actively flushing what little remaining credibility they have left down the toilet, or they know but still can't stop themselves.

Fun fact: CNN has a 33% trust rating among its own viewers

But literally 57% of people support the travel ban EO with only 33% opposed. You pulled your numbers out of your ass, and are doing exactly what you admonished me for doing (that I didn't even do), and are using your personal anecdotes instead of data. People are not livid. Not many people are freaking out because "oh my god what will we do without more Somali ghettos in the US?!?!"

Maybe we can argue about whether CNN are "fake news" or merely partisan hacks, but Buzzfeed is certainly beyond defense at this point. In the Trump era too many outlets are crossing the line between merely biased to outright unethical (see also: CNN collaborating with Donna Brazile and the Hillary campaign and WaPo's recent made up stories about 'fake news' outlets and russia hacking a power station), and it's destroying their already dismal credibility; to circle the wagons would only taint them all.

Two thirds of CNN's own viewers don't trust CNN (other networks are significantly better, but still not great), and overall the media's credibility is 32% (as of September. Probably well down in the 20's by now)

By all means someone needs to be out there to hold Trump (or any president) accountable, but that entity needs credibility and public trust, and the media is actively flushing what trust it has left down the toilet.

I'm hoping that people will wise up after trump and not so blatantly vote based on "feelings".

I switched from being a democrat/independent for most of my life to supporting Trump, and one lesson I learned is that both sides are absolutely convinced the other side is voting on "their feelings" and only we - the good guys - are voting on facts and rationality.

Our infrastructure is horribly vulnerable. Is Russia ready to throw the switch on any secret back doors they have managed to plant? Probably not. Are we? I hope not. Can you trust your average Chinese network router? I seriously doubt it. Embedded backdoors are the worst case as evidenced by the recent B&N tablet.

CNN fired Donna, and they were right to do so. There is no reason to believe they knew before hand.
CNN goes for ratings as opposed to focusing on actual news and such. That being said they don't seem to deliberately tilt it.

FOX and MSNBC do deliberately tilt it link

I only have to have fox on for about 5 minutes to see bias, but then I actively look. Hell I even listened to Rush for a year at one point. In a vacuum the conservatives sound good. They are fighting the good fight and all that. You defend your points by pointing to what people believe? How about pointing to actual tests of what people know? The wikipedia article on fox seems best. Yes it isn't an original source, but it does have links. link

No one is doubting that Fox is making money. I just want to see the bias ended in all networks. Remove hannity and the rest. (Fox does have some legitimate news people. They may be slightly biased, but they are fine.) Remove all the shills, including the ones at CNN. Never ever show me kellyanne conway again. She is not a credible source. Hell she was just conflating there being no proof of any actual voting machine hack with meaning that the election wasn't affecting. Of course the election was affected. People were influenced to vote against Hillary and for Trump.

Finally, if you didn't vote on feelings for Trump then what did you vote for? Hillary had plans. Most were basically to finish what was started. Trump had "make america great again" as his plan, which is no plan at all. He said he had a secret plan for ISIS. Maybe he will tell us soon.

The thing I'd really like to see is the legitimate media sticking together when Trump attacks one or the other.

Maybe we can argue about whether CNN are "fake news" or merely partisan hacks, but Buzzfeed is certainly beyond defense at this point. In the Trump era too many outlets are crossing the line between merely biased to outright unethical (see also: CNN collaborating with Donna Brazile and the Hillary campaign and WaPo's recent made up stories about 'fake news' outlets and russia hacking a power station), and it's destroying their already dismal credibility; to circle the wagons would only taint them all.

Two thirds of CNN's own viewers don't trust CNN (other networks are significantly better, but still not great), and overall the media's credibility is 32% (as of September. Probably well down in the 20's by now)

By all means someone needs to be out there to hold Trump (or any president) accountable, but that entity needs credibility and public trust, and the media is actively flushing what trust it has left down the toilet.

I'm hoping that people will wise up after trump and not so blatantly vote based on "feelings".

I switched from being a democrat/independent for most of my life to supporting Trump, and one lesson I learned is that both sides are absolutely convinced the other side is voting on "their feelings" and only we - the good guys - are voting on facts and rationality.

I'm a bit mystified that congress is considering a pay floor when it is controlled by republicans. I suppose it could be shameless pandering, but those guys usually don't even like a minimum wage for unskilled labor. I thought they believed that free market dust fixed everything? Perhaps I'm missing something.

The republican party is now the Trump party, and Trump isn't an orthodox conservative as commonly understood. That's the biggest reason why the establishment republican backlash was so heavy against him. The GOP had been a shaky coalition led by a tiny number of hypercapitalists who pandered to a much larger group of voters with much different concerns. Charles Koch pretended to care about religious freedom and abortion in order to convince Bubba Joe to go along with all the free market crap that had been ruining his life for decades. This coalition had been faltering for years - saved from irrelevance only by the democrats' commensurate terribleness - and Trump recognized that the path to electoral success was to seize the party from the leaders and talk directly to and expand the other 95%. During the primaries the conservative establishment attacked Trump as not a true conservative because he bucked the orthodoxy, and as we saw no one gave a shit. Only the billionaire wing of the party ever actually cared about such things.

Some - eventually all - of the GOP is coming over to Trump's way of thinking, or at least figuring out how to play ball. Polls show GOP voters overwhelmingly side with Trump over the rest of the party, so trying to stick with the old ways is suicidal.

The only poll that showed that was the LA Times poll, ...

Which "that" are you referring to?

- If it's who's ahead, you have some point - though the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times "Daybreak" poll is NOT the only one showing Trump ahead by at least a small margin. (In fact it shows them neck-and-neck, crossing back-and-forth, and has Hillary up by 0.3% just now.)

- If it's how the musdslinging is changing the voters' preferences, it's not fully over that poll's one-to-two-week report delay + smoothing yet.

In particular (for both cases) I note that this morning's Rasmussen daily tracking poll has Trump slightly ahead AND is starting to have any dings to Trump from the spate of allegations within horizon. Yet they see no such dings (and comment about their absence in the accompanying analysis).

[USC/L.A. Times] is a bit notorious because it polls the same people at each iteration.

It's also notorious for being far more accurate when it comes to predicting both the winner and the margin. (The latter can turn into the former if the race is very close, as this one is.) That repeated sampling of varying subsets of the same group is a part of the methodology that they credit for avoiding certain distortions that affect other polls.

The rationalle is explained on their web site. Give it a look.

There is too much division around Trump for him to get enough votes.

The trend in the polls is moving in Trump's favor, with some polls showing Trump even with Clinton, or outright ahead. CBS/NYT is a tie, Rasmussen is Trump with a clear lead, Economist/Yougov within a margin of error.

Of course, Clinton had a bad couple weeks, so that may a temporary thing, but it could also be part of a longer trend. I really think things will start to crystallize once the debates happen, because that will push people into their animalistic "us against them" mode.

I wouldn't be too sure of a Hillary presidency. We're a long way off but Rasmussen has Trump leading now (within margin for err). Combine that with the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary and some fired up conservatives... it may not even be particularly close. Remember all the experts opining before Brexit and the assumption that Remain would win. latest poll: http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

You're correct about it being a huge assumption, especially since Rasmussen's latest poll of likely voters has him 7 points ahead, which is outside of the margin of error: http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

You forget 71% of Democrats are comfortable electing a criminal

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

republicans prefer to have their president commit the crimes when in office.
i can keep this up as long as you can.

You forget 71% of Democrats are comfortable electing a criminal

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Like this new poll ? Trump 41%, Clinton 39% http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Trump is actually leading Clinton right now. Most other current polls show the same result, or have them tied. Given Trump just came out of a very nasty primary (as compared to the milquetoast competition on the Demcrat side), he will inevitably rise in the polls.

Your faith in Hillary is perhaps misguided

It's early, but don't start picking out the china Hillary will steal AGAIN from the White House.

All of the media.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

A recent Rasmussen poll states:

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming.

Seriously? 32% of Americans are not opposed to imprisoning scientists having theories that differ from the political establishment?!

Ridiculous you say? It's already happening with a number of climate scientists calling on Obama to bring racketeering charges on skeptics:

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

Have we really not progressed from the inquisition of Galileo? Time to wake up, America!

I had this signature before the sentiment went mainstream. But welcome to the club...

Sounds like most of America too... http://legacy.rasmussenreports...

Prety much every poll shows more than half of Americans don't want Obamacare. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/three-years-later-obamacare-arrives-little-understood-and-not-well-liked/

The weird thing is, it hasn't seemed to affect Obama's popularity at all (see here for one example of a daily tracking poll). I can understand not protesting, since it's tough work, but how can people brush it off so easily? Is it possible that the only people who are upset about NSA tracking are people who didn't like Obama anyway?

Honestly, i have no idea why they did this survey. Surely sales figures speak for themselves?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/05/15/e-book-sales/2159117/
"even as digital books remain the fastest-growing part of the market. They now account for about 20% of all book sales reported by publishers."

That pretty much matches what the survey has confirmed, and, sales figures is more reliable data after looking at the question formatting.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_questions/july_2013/questions_e_books_july_11_12_2013

iirc Rasmussen telephone polling doesn't even include cell phones. Polling people who still have a land line seems like a good way to get a skewed result.

There is a little more to it than that.

To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.

After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.

Methodology

I don't think it's apathy, I think it's surrender of the governed.

For example, Congress currently has an approval rating of 7%, and a disapproval rating of 65% (Rasmussen). If there's one thing Americans agree on, it's that our elected leadership is, on average, terrible. And yet early polling suggests that of 435 Congressmen, only about 50 are likely to be replaced.

The fastest-growing party affiliation in America is independent. That strongly suggests that neither major party is representing the citizens. And yet there are only 3 independents holding federal elected office, and 1 of those independents (Joe Lieberman) is really a Democrat in disguise because his party supported him over the candidate chosen by voters in Connecticut in the primary.

So this leads to the argument that Americans are paying attention, think their elected leaders and political parties are horrible, and vote for them anyways because they think the alternatives are even worse.

There's another poll that says only 26% favor the government’s secret collecting of these phone records for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. Also, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters now consider the federal government a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. That’s up 10 points from 46% in December. So your suspicion is right, if you ask different poll questions, you get different results. (warning: those pages auto-play video with sound).

The question in the story asks, "Are you willing to give up some personal privacy," and that question is too broad. I am willing to give up some personal privacy if it saves lives, for example, I am more than happy to tell you the color of my carpet is red and my walls are white, and my carpet is blue. I am annoyed, but willing to have my bags searched at airports if it helps. So saying 'some privacy'.......well that doesn't tell you anything about the NSA listening to phone calls.

Whatever. They're still going to vote Democrat/Republican in the next election.

There's another poll that says only 26% favor the government’s secret collecting of these phone records for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. Also, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters now consider the federal government a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. That’s up 10 points from 46% in December. So your suspicion is right, if you ask different poll questions, you get different results. (warning: those pages auto-play video with sound).

The question in the story asks, "Are you willing to give up some personal privacy," and that question is too broad. I am willing to give up some personal privacy if it saves lives, for example, I am more than happy to tell you the color of my carpet is red and my walls are white, and my carpet is blue. I am annoyed, but willing to have my bags searched at airports if it helps. So saying 'some privacy'.......well that doesn't tell you anything about the NSA listening to phone calls.

Whatever. They're still going to vote Democrat/Republican in the next election.

There's another poll that says only 26% favor the government’s secret collecting of these phone records for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. Also, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters now consider the federal government a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. That’s up 10 points from 46% in December. So your suspicion is right, if you ask different poll questions, you get different results. (warning: those pages auto-play video with sound).

The question in the story asks, "Are you willing to give up some personal privacy," and that question is too broad. I am willing to give up some personal privacy if it saves lives, for example, I am more than happy to tell you the color of my carpet is red and my walls are white, and my carpet is blue. I am annoyed, but willing to have my bags searched at airports if it helps. So saying 'some privacy'.......well that doesn't tell you anything about the NSA listening to phone calls.

There's another poll that says only 26% favor the government’s secret collecting of these phone records for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. Also, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters now consider the federal government a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. That’s up 10 points from 46% in December. So your suspicion is right, if you ask different poll questions, you get different results. (warning: those pages auto-play video with sound).

The question in the story asks, "Are you willing to give up some personal privacy," and that question is too broad. I am willing to give up some personal privacy if it saves lives, for example, I am more than happy to tell you the color of my carpet is red and my walls are white, and my carpet is blue. I am annoyed, but willing to have my bags searched at airports if it helps. So saying 'some privacy'.......well that doesn't tell you anything about the NSA listening to phone calls.

You believe that Biden is secretly against these things and is the white knight that is going to come to our rescue?

I believe Biden is a slimy politician who will not say and do things that will very likely get him impeached.

Sending a message that this kind of stuff is an impeachable offense is a good idea. It doesn't matter right now though, Obama's job approval rating is around 50%. Any impeachment effort for a president that people still like will fail.

with over 90% of the country still holding on to "pot is teh badz, dur" laws

Not any more. 56% of people are now in favour of legalising pot. That's why things are starting to change. It just won't happen overnight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/56_favor_legalizing_regulating_marijuana

Most Americans define? I beg to differ. 78% is also about the percentage of Christians in the US so it shows, with a margin of error of 1 or two points, that most Christians believe exactly what I claimed. Going to church once a year makes an agnostic/apathetic a christian no more than visiting Japan would make me Japanese (or likely to claim to be). 99% of people who self identify as Christians not surprisingly believe what the bible says: that Jesus was the son of God. Hitler did not believe it, wanted to destroy Christianity (read the wiki on his beliefs) and therefore wasn't a Christian by any stretch of any definition (other than birth and occasional lip service).

Rasmussen has been pretty accurate in the last few elections, and their numbers pretty much show a deadlock.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Fox News's darling for collecting poll data about political events is Rasmussen Reports. In Rasmussen Reports's methodology, they make a series of random, pre-recorded calls to landline telephones. One sensible theory says that people who still have landline phones, and who take the time to do an automated random phone poll, tend to be older and retired. These people typically vote conservatively, thus causing Rasmussen's findings to be skewed conservatively.

Likewise, any sort of "polling" of Twitter results will probably not be statistically interesting, because not everyone uses Twitter. I find it utterly unsurprising that Twitter people discuss Obama far more frequently than Romney. However I don't think that these numbers can be extrapolated to the general election in any way.

Just what majority were you referring to?

I guess 55% of Americans are old white men angrily brandishing guns.

Not that I'd have any problem with that.

> "Less than 25% of the public view downloading music as illegal, and to be fair NONE should."

2/3rds of Americans view piracy as theft. I realize, though, that pirates have an interest in twisting numbers around to make it seem like everybody's on their side.

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that someone who downloads a movie online without paying for it is stealing from the company that made the film. Eighteen percent (18%) do not view this free downloading as theft. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/ 71_see_government_censorship_of_internet_ as_bigger_threat_than_illegal_downloading

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that someone who downloads a movie online without paying for it is stealing from the company that made the film. Eighteen percent (18%) do not view this free downloading as theft. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/71_see_government_censorship_ of_internet_as_bigger_threat_than_illegal_downloading

As much as I would fear that voting would be won by short-sighted idiots who want a zero-year copyright, I am heartened by the fact that the large majority of Americans are in opposition to that kind of nonsense.

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that someone who downloads a movie online without paying for it is stealing from the company that made the film. Eighteen percent (18%) do not view this free downloading as theft. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/ 71_see_government_censorship_of_internet_as_ bigger_threat_than_illegal_downloading
(I had to put two spaces in the URL because Slashdot wouldn't allow long URLs like that.)

How is this going to matter in any way, shape or form when Congressional Ratings have been about as low as they can get...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance

Brings back the old 'joke': What's the opposite of progress? Right. Congress.

If you think they care a wit about the average American, you're hopelessly naive (in general, not as a response to the parent, although thinking they'll listen... Ah well :)

Can you name a period of time where people have been happy with their government?

You don't seem to know a lot about history. In WWI, people volunteered to give their life for their government. (Although that changed after the war just dragged on and on)

Look at congressional approval ratings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145238/congress-job-approval-rating-worst-gallup-history.aspx

But that was last year. This year:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance