Not only don't I think its accidental, I don't think its true. Obama's numbers have been going up since November 2014
Still, from the graph you posted, there is a pronounced rise in his approval and lowering of his disapproval numbers starting right about Christmas 2015, which was when the Republican field had been set. In fact, the margin of approval over disapproval has gone up a full 10 points since the week of Dec 22-27. That is a huge swing. I don't see anything in that data that suggest anything but the public's reaction to the notion of a Trump/Clinton election battle.
School 2 is that now that there's no longer any real gain from tearing the guy down, the Republicans have aimed their massive media slime machine elsewhere.
"Obama + Disaster" is still the most common pairing of words from the entire Republican debate season, and something Trump uses every single rally. Just today, I heard Ted Cruz refer to the "Obama-Clinton economy".
You're right, he was. But he had a "high floor" of people who supported him just because he knew how to play a cowboy in the movies, so he left with a high approval rating.
Obama's kind of awful too, but at least he's not crapping in a diaper and calling his wife, "Mommy" like Reagan was in his second term.
Do you all think it's accidental that as soon as we know who the candidates for president are going to be that Obama's approval ratings go up? It's as if people are saying, "Holy shit. Obama wasn't really so bad after all."
He's currently got a higher approval rating than Ronald Reagan at the same point in their terms.
There were a lot American GIs, a lot of Chinese, a lot of Koreans, a lot Filipinos, a lot of Burmese, and so forth, who shed no tears for the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was an aggressor state, an expansionist militaristic empire that caused the peoples of Asia significant grief and death. The atrocities the Japanese committed in Asia have never got the attention they deserved.
By that metric, the Cheyenne have every right to nuke Washington DC.
Senate GOP Launches Inquiry Into Facebook's News Curation
I can't imagine what laws the GOP thinks Facebook has broken. You wonder how anyone could have made Congress even less popular than it was under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but somehow Republicans have managed to leverage rank stupidity like this to accomplish that feat.
Will the GOP congress propose that there be equal-time rules for websites? Is there a floor beneath which the GOP will not sink? Stay tuned. The convention is still months away.
Because small government is extremely vulnerable to being picked apart by mega corps. You saw this with them buying off the State legislatures so they could gerrymander their way into controlling the house and Senate. You also saw it in the 50s when it took the feds to put an end to "separate but equal" and you're seeing it today from the likes of Ted Cruz who would like very much to create a theocracy but can't get away with it on a national level. There's lots of horrible things you can get away with locally that don't fly nationally.
I think the best outcome would be if we actually got what we voted for.
The Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution specifically to make sure Americans do NOT actually get what they vote for.
If you think about who makes up the voting public, I can understand why they'd do that. Democracy is mob rule, and mobs are very stupid, easily manipulated things.
It's not as silly as all those parents who knowingly send their daughters off to college knowing that they have a 20% chance of being raped. The President says so.
Oh, you're one of those MRA rape apologists. Good to know.
And it's not 20%, it's 23%. And it's not just the President that says so.
There is an excellent multiplayer FPS available on Steam. It's called Verdun , and aims for realism of the actual weapons used. It is foot-soldier, trench-warfare only.
WWI games have generally sucked, because it wasn't really a fun war. There wasn't a clear-cut bad guy and the fighting was slow, sloppy and disease-ridden.
But when I'm president, we're going to have wars so terrific it'll make your head spin. I'm talking about tremendous, tremendous wars.
yes, i do. i used this thing called "google" and from there learned all about plates and subduction and building patterns in LA.
i didnt have an email scandal, faked hockey stick graphs, destroyed raw data, tweaked up fake data for the public, rewritten historical data, or have to threaten my academic opposition with jail via the RICO act. have you any actual clean data tp back up your religious silly feelings?
I had a feeling the ACs weren't going to like this story one bit. No sirree. You can't pull any of that climate change nonsense over their eyes. They're too smart for that.
You know that anybody can find 'an economist' that will tell them anything. It's part of why the field is such a bad joke.
Exactly, which makes it all the more funny that Donald Trump can't cite a single "great economist" that believes there is a 42% unemployment rate in the United States.
As big a joke as the field of economics is, and with all his wealth and eye for talent-for-sale (see: marriages) Trump can't find one economist bent enough to support his assertion. Mind-blowing.
"The number isn't reflective," he said. "I've seen numbers of 24 percent -- I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." He continued, "5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent."
So, it sounds like rather than saying someone else thinks the unemployment rate is 42%, he simply makes the whole thing up, because you cannot find a "great economist" who says the unemployment rate is 42%.
So instead of just making up a number, Donald goes a step further and makes up an economist who makes up a number. That is the sign of a quality fabulist.
Combine the participation rate (Which does not include people considered unemployed) with the unemployment rate which is 5% + 37.2% (Not Participating) = 42.2%.
Now you may think that people giving up on looking for a job and a significant increase in disability claims is a good thing, many of us don't though.
Just yesterday, I visited someone who is counted in Trump's 42% number: my 85 year-old mother.
Is Trump saying he wants people over 75 to get off their lazy asses and get to work? How about moms who stay at home to raise kids?
Anyway, Trump corrected himself within a few days by offering two different "unemployment rates". He's a very creative guy.
Before jumping to the fact checks based on the present accounting method to determine the official unemployment figures, did you read more about the context by which Trump defined what he described as the unemployment rate? Honestly, tell me if you did, or if you simply are gong off that one singled out statement.
So you're saying that a savvy businessman and financial genius like Trump doesn't know the meaning of, "unemployment rate"?
Anyway, not a week later he backtracked the number to 23%, and then 20%. We should probably stay tuned to see if by simply opening his mouth he can reduce the unemployment rate even further.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, from the graph you posted, there is a pronounced rise in his approval and lowering of his disapproval numbers starting right about Christmas 2015, which was when the Republican field had been set. In fact, the margin of approval over disapproval has gone up a full 10 points since the week of Dec 22-27. That is a huge swing. I don't see anything in that data that suggest anything but the public's reaction to the notion of a Trump/Clinton election battle.
"Obama + Disaster" is still the most common pairing of words from the entire Republican debate season, and something Trump uses every single rally. Just today, I heard Ted Cruz refer to the "Obama-Clinton economy".
Here in the US, we build monuments to our war criminals, and call them, "presidential libraries".
Dumbshit, German users don't pay three times the price of energy. Also, please learn the difference between energy and power.
http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2014...
You're right, he was. But he had a "high floor" of people who supported him just because he knew how to play a cowboy in the movies, so he left with a high approval rating.
Obama's kind of awful too, but at least he's not crapping in a diaper and calling his wife, "Mommy" like Reagan was in his second term.
Congress is about to start investigations into whether Facebook is allowed to be liberal or not.
I'm pretty sure Obama won't fight with Congress any more because it would be seen as him picking on someone who can't defend themselves.
What's the statute of limitations on atrocities?
Do you all think it's accidental that as soon as we know who the candidates for president are going to be that Obama's approval ratings go up? It's as if people are saying, "Holy shit. Obama wasn't really so bad after all."
He's currently got a higher approval rating than Ronald Reagan at the same point in their terms.
They do, but we don't know it because they're so inscrutable.
By that metric, the Cheyenne have every right to nuke Washington DC.
I can't imagine what laws the GOP thinks Facebook has broken. You wonder how anyone could have made Congress even less popular than it was under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but somehow Republicans have managed to leverage rank stupidity like this to accomplish that feat.
Will the GOP congress propose that there be equal-time rules for websites? Is there a floor beneath which the GOP will not sink? Stay tuned. The convention is still months away.
Truth bomb.
The Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution specifically to make sure Americans do NOT actually get what they vote for.
If you think about who makes up the voting public, I can understand why they'd do that. Democracy is mob rule, and mobs are very stupid, easily manipulated things.
Also, Person of Interest.
Oh, you're one of those MRA rape apologists. Good to know.
And it's not 20%, it's 23%. And it's not just the President that says so.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/...
WWI games have generally sucked, because it wasn't really a fun war. There wasn't a clear-cut bad guy and the fighting was slow, sloppy and disease-ridden.
But when I'm president, we're going to have wars so terrific it'll make your head spin. I'm talking about tremendous, tremendous wars.
I know. Ain't it grand?
I had a feeling the ACs weren't going to like this story one bit. No sirree. You can't pull any of that climate change nonsense over their eyes. They're too smart for that.
Exactly, which makes it all the more funny that Donald Trump can't cite a single "great economist" that believes there is a 42% unemployment rate in the United States.
As big a joke as the field of economics is, and with all his wealth and eye for talent-for-sale (see: marriages) Trump can't find one economist bent enough to support his assertion. Mind-blowing.
Discuss it all you want. You'll still never get it to be 42% in any meaningful way.
No discussion is necessary. We don't have to argue about what the definition SHOULD be, because there is already a definition.
http://www.investopedia.com/te...
Alright, here's the actual quote:
So, it sounds like rather than saying someone else thinks the unemployment rate is 42%, he simply makes the whole thing up, because you cannot find a "great economist" who says the unemployment rate is 42%.
So instead of just making up a number, Donald goes a step further and makes up an economist who makes up a number. That is the sign of a quality fabulist.
Take another look. The recommended specs are different from the ones you posted.
Both of those links have Trump claiming the unemployment rate is 42%. So did YOU read those links?
Or are you saying that Trump doesn't really believe that number, he just pulled it out of his ass because he though it would sound good to the yahoos?
Just yesterday, I visited someone who is counted in Trump's 42% number: my 85 year-old mother.
Is Trump saying he wants people over 75 to get off their lazy asses and get to work? How about moms who stay at home to raise kids?
Anyway, Trump corrected himself within a few days by offering two different "unemployment rates". He's a very creative guy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
So you're saying that a savvy businessman and financial genius like Trump doesn't know the meaning of, "unemployment rate"?
Anyway, not a week later he backtracked the number to 23%, and then 20%. We should probably stay tuned to see if by simply opening his mouth he can reduce the unemployment rate even further.