Gallup - Hillary Clinton Maintains Near Record-High Favorability

[ajn678]

Was that really necessary? Wasn't the chart clear enough for you? :roll:

Yes, she had high favorability ratings for over 20 years and far above any of the GOP candidates. Thanks for pointing that out.

50% is pretty standard for someone that was First Lady, and who dabbled in politics for a little while after. Its a far cry from your 66% though. Again, all that really matters is her current numbers though. And what they will look like in November when it comes down to it. To suggest that Republicans causes the 26 point swing over the past 4 years is hilariously ignorant.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Why in the **** anyone with half a brain would jump on such an idiotic bandwagon is beyond me.

 

[Moot]

Geez! You do know that some of us will actually LOOK at your citations rather than merely take your word for it right? :roll:



This was no "racist propaganda," it was:



As for this one?:

Donald Trump just promoted a Nazi Twitter account that showed him gassing Bernie Sanders

It's the SAME TWEET issue, only someone went back to the original tweeter's website and found some Nazi-oriented material. Voila! New story about old tweet linking Trump to the supremacist tweeter simply because he had the GALL to re-tweet a funny pic about Jeb Bush.

Now this one?:

Trump Tweeted Fabricated Murder Stats From A Neo-Nazi And This Is How The Media Reported It | ThinkProgress

He did re-tweet false crime statistics assuming they were accurate. A more astute "Tweeter" might have done some fact-checking, but hell very few "Tweeters" seem to...often just forwarding whatever they get they think is funny, weird, or possibly true. In this case I'd have hoped Trump would have cleared it with his P.R. people. Point for you on poor judgement; still does not mean he is a racist.

This one?:

Donald Trump retweets neo-Nazi (again) | Fusion

A REPEAT of that very first tweet story about the Jeb Bush bagman picture. So 3 of your four citations are about the same single tweet!

Based on the above, if that's all it takes for you, then you have a very low threshold of doubts.

PR people? LOL Trump is his own PR person...and his tweeting will be his downfall. There were two neo nazi tweeters:

1. White Genocide, who is pro-Hitler with a picture of the founder of the American Nazi Party as his avatar. On his twitter feed he has a picture of Trump in Nazi uniform gassing Sanders, who is Jewish and several quotes from Hitler speeches. The article goes on to say...

"...his ex-wife, Ivana, told Vanity Fair in a 1990 interview that Trump kept a collection of Hitler’s speeches on his night stand by his bed."


2. Non-Dildo’d Goyim, a Neo-Nazi "whose bio declared that “[w]e should have listened to the Austrian man with the little mustache.” He posted the racist graphic with false crime stats.


"But hell very few tweeters fact check"? But hell, Trump isn't the average tweeter and very few tweeters are running for President of the United States. He should know better. Hell, you should know better too, instead of making excuses for him.

 

[Grim17]

Where's the criminal charges? Again, stop making this thread about Benghazi and email nonsense, Grim.


Please explain why Republicans can't bring their own ratings up? We know that Hillary had maintained high ratings for over 20 years and her ratings were +66% in 2012....but why have the ratings of most of the GOP candidates remained consistently under 35%....and why can't they bring them up?

You accused republicans of being responsible for Hillary Clinton's low poll numbers, and I refuted that notion with facts.

Hillary Clinton as a senator, flew under the radar and attracted very little attention from the media, which allowed the public to forget about the Clinton scandals of the 90's. With nothing to judge her upon, the public didn't have any reason to disapprove of her in 2008. Her 4 years as Secretary of State is another story entirely. She was in the spotlight from the day she took office at the State Department and for the first time, the American public had something to evaluate her on.

Unlike you, most of the American public was paying attention to what she was saying and doing as SOS, and they especially paid attention when it came to her words and actions surrounding the Benghazi hearings and her email server controversy. Her continuous denial and refusal to accept culpability for anything, the incessant lies and deceptions, her unwillingness to answer questions about her conduct for weeks on end, and her laying the blame for every single negative thing about her that surfaced, on some kind of republican conspiracy against her, is exactly why the majority of the American people don't trust the woman.

Hillary Clinton is 100% responsible for her low poll numbers... Nobody else

 

[Captain Adverse]

PR people? LOL Trump is his own PR person...and his tweeting will be his downfall. There were two neo nazi tweeters:

1. White Genocide, who is pro-Hitler with a picture of the founder of the American Nazi Party as his avatar. On his twitter feed he has a picture of Trump in Nazi uniform gassing Sanders, who is Jewish and several quotes from Hitler speeches. The article goes on to say...

"...his ex-wife, Ivana, told Vanity Fair in a 1990 interview that Trump kept a collection of Hitler’s speeches on his night stand by his bed."


2. Non-Dildo’d Goyim, a Neo-Nazi "whose bio declared that “[w]e should have listened to the Austrian man with the little mustache.” He posted the racist graphic with false crime stats.


"But hell very few tweeters fact check"? But hell, Trump isn't the average tweeter and very few tweeters are running for President of the United States. He should know better. Hell, you should know better too, instead of making excuses for him.

So you are confirming that you cited FOUR articles about TWO Tweets. Thanks.

Now despite your attempt to besmirch Trump with the one tweet you cited three times, recall the actual tweet was a completely non-racist joke-pic regarding Jeb Bush with a non-racist accompanying comment.

Again, I'll give you the poor judgement points for the other tweet, but if you've viewed the Gun Control sub-forum you will see statistics on age, sex, and yes even race used in arguments for and against gun control. Sometimes postings on both sides with mistaken facts. So ONE slipped by Trump? And you consider it intentionally racist? Okay. :roll:

Look, unlike joe citizen, Trump get's hundreds if not thousands of tweets a day. So many that he probably glances through and retweets any he thinks meets the "funny/weird/informational" standards most people use. It's even possible he has some Personal Assistant doing it for him from time to time, who knows? Still no evidence of racism, despite your push to believe so.

You want a valid example of racism? Do some research on George Wallace's campaign, or David Dukes run for Governor. Then come back to me and show me how Trump compares. :coffeepap:

 

[Abbazorkzog]

So you are confirming that you cited FOUR articles about TWO Tweets. Thanks.

Now despite your attempt to besmirch Trump with the one tweet you cited three times, recall the actual tweet was a completely non-racist joke-pic regarding Jeb Bush with a non-racist accompanying comment.

Again, I'll give you the poor judgement points for the other tweet, but if you've viewed the Gun Control sub-forum you will see statistics on age, sex, and yes even race used in arguments for and against gun control. Sometimes postings on both sides with mistaken facts. So ONE slipped by Trump? And you consider it intentionally racist? Okay. :roll:

Look, unlike joe citizen, Trump get's hundreds if not thousands of tweets a day. So many that he probably glances through and retweets any he thinks meets the "funny/weird/informational" standards most people use. It's even possible he has some Personal Assistant doing it for him from time to time, who knows? Still no evidence of racism, despite your push to believe so.

You want a valid example of racism? Do some research on George Wallace's campaign, or David Dukes run for Governor. Then come back to me and show me how Trump compares. :coffeepap:

The thing that gets me about Trump is him mocking that reporter, and his ties to the Clintons (and, admittedly, his ****ty foreign policy proposals)... those things are automatic disqualifications for Leader of the Free World, for me personally.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The thing that gets me about Trump is him mocking that reporter, and his ties to the Clintons (and, admittedly, his ****ty foreign policy proposals)... those things are automatic disqualifications for Leader of the Free World, for me personally.

I can respect your position; but my biggest concern this election cycle is allowing Hillary a win with the option of 4 years to stack SCOTUS with at least one, and possibly more Supremes.

You know I am a strong supporter of the 2A and I don't want to give that kind of long-term screw-with-my-rights-via-SCOTUS to her control.

Better a man I believe will make the right appointments, than a woman I know will do otherwise. :shrug:

 

[Moot]

You accused republicans of being responsible for Hillary Clinton's low poll numbers, and I refuted that notion with facts.

Hillary Clinton as a senator, flew under the radar and attracted very little attention from the media, which allowed the public to forget about the Clinton scandals of the 90's. With nothing to judge her upon, the public didn't have any reason to disapprove of her in 2008. Her 4 years as Secretary of State is another story entirely. She was in the spotlight from the day she took office at the State Department and for the first time, the American public had something to evaluate her on.

Unlike you, most of the American public was paying attention to what she was saying and doing as SOS, and they especially paid attention when it came to her words and actions surrounding the Benghazi hearings and her email server controversy. Her continuous denial and refusal to accept culpability for anything, the incessant lies and deceptions, her unwillingness to answer questions about her conduct for weeks on end, and her laying the blame for every single negative thing about her that surfaced, on some kind of republican conspiracy against her, is exactly why the majority of the American people don't trust the woman.

Hillary Clinton is 100% responsible for her low poll numbers... Nobody else

Nice dodge...not. I asked you why Republicans can't bring their own ratings up...and you don't seem to have an answer. So lets try again...

How could republicans, whose ratings have averaged around 35% since 2009 compete against Hillary whose ratings averaged 50% to 65% since 1998?


Republican Party Favorability | Pew Research Center

Why can't republicans get their ratings up, Grim? With such low ratings how could they could compete against Hillary in an election?

 

[Moot]

I can respect your position; but my biggest concern this election cycle is allowing Hillary a win with the option of 4 years to stack SCOTUS with at least one, and possibly more Supremes.

You know I am a strong supporter of the 2A and I don't want to give that kind of long-term screw-with-my-rights-via-SCOTUS to her control.

Better a man I believe will make the right appointments, than a woman I know will do otherwise. :shrug:

When Hillary becomes president I hope she nominates Obama to replace Scalia. What poetic justice that would be. LOL

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Nice dodge...not. I asked you why Republicans can't bring their own ratings up...and you don't seem to have an answer. So lets try again...

How could republicans, whose ratings have averaged around 35% since 2009 compete against Hillary whose ratings averaged 50% to 65% since 1998?


Republican Party Favorability | Pew Research Center

Why can't republicans get their ratings up, Grim? With such low ratings how could they could compete against Hillary in an election?

I wonder what that poll would look like if it actually factored in the majority of Americans (which are neither Republican nor Democrat)...

 

[Abbazorkzog]

When Hillary becomes president I hope she nominates Obama to replace Scalia. What poetic justice that would be. LOL

:lamo

No.

 

[Captain Adverse]

When Hillary becomes president I hope she nominates Obama to replace Scalia. What poetic justice that would be. LOL

(Sigh) Check your facts and you might note that gun rights supporters are committed voters.

It's why most gun control laws fail absent a "terrible tragedy" to motivate gun control advocates toward the ballot box.

As I've said to others, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[Moot]

So you are confirming that you cited FOUR articles about TWO Tweets. Thanks.

Now despite your attempt to besmirch Trump with the one tweet you cited three times, recall the actual tweet was a completely non-racist joke-pic regarding Jeb Bush with a non-racist accompanying comment.

Again, I'll give you the poor judgement points for the other tweet, but if you've viewed the Gun Control sub-forum you will see statistics on age, sex, and yes even race used in arguments for and against gun control. Sometimes postings on both sides with mistaken facts. So ONE slipped by Trump? And you consider it intentionally racist? Okay. :roll:

Look, unlike joe citizen, Trump get's hundreds if not thousands of tweets a day. So many that he probably glances through and retweets any he thinks meets the "funny/weird/informational" standards most people use. It's even possible he has some Personal Assistant doing it for him from time to time, who knows? Still no evidence of racism, despite your push to believe so.

You want a valid example of racism? Do some research on George Wallace's campaign, or David Dukes run for Governor. Then come back to me and show me how Trump compares. :coffeepap:

Did I say there were more than two tweets? #WhiteGenocide is an "influencer" ...

"... The Little Bird software analyzed Twitter content to generate a ranked list of just under 2,000 #WhiteGenocide “influencers” as of February 8. The more impactful, the higher up on the list (which, understandably, ebbs and flows a bit over time).

Since the start of his campaign, Donald Trump has retweeted at least 75 users who follow at least three of the top 50 #WhiteGenocide influencers. Moreover, a majority of these retweeted accounts are themselves followed by more than 100 #WhiteGenocide influencers....

Donald Trump's Social Media Ties to White Supremacists - Fortune

So when Trump re-tweets users who follow #WhiteGenocide he is retweeting more than just two tweeters....he's actually retweeting hundreds of white supremacists to thousands of their racist followers. See how that works?


It's funny that you should mention George Wallace since I had already mentioned him earlier in this thread....to you. :roll:

"....The last time a presidential candidate got the endorsement of white supremacists was George Wallace in 1968. Wallace's daughter even noticed the similarities.

"Trump and my father say out loud what people are thinking but don't have the courage to say," Peggy Wallace Kennedy told NPR. Wallace Kennedy was 18 when she was on the campaign trail with her father in 1968. She believes Trump is exploiting voters' worst instincts, the way her late father once did.

"They both were able to adopt the notion that fear and hate are the two greatest motivators of voters that feel alienated from government," she said....​

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ecord-high-favorability-6.html#post1065956595​

 

[BitterPill]

So OBL wanted someone strong on fighting al qaida and islamic terrorism, rather than someone who believed that the American military should be less engaged in the middle east.

That makes perfect sense... ROFLMMFAO

How do you know Osama wasn't lying to you? I mean, I find it a bit strange you take the man's word as gospel, and this despite your deep-seated animosity toward Muslims.

Maybe you actually do think Osama had America's best interests at heart. Hell, even that could be a possibility.

 

[Moot]

(Sigh) Check your facts and you might note that gun rights supporters are committed voters.

It's why most gun control laws fail absent a "terrible tragedy" to motivate gun control advocates toward the ballot box.

As I've said to others, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Gun rights supporters have been one issue voters for decades...and are calucated into the Republican base. They weren't going to vote Hillary anyway....so stop trying to change the subject.

 

[Moot]

I wonder what that poll would look like if it actually factored in the majority of Americans (which are neither Republican nor Democrat)...

Since most polls use a random sampling of the population, I assume Pew Research did too.

 

[Grim17]

Nice dodge...not. I asked you why Republicans can't bring their own ratings up...and you don't seem to have an answer. So lets try again...

How could republicans, whose ratings have averaged around 35% since 2009 compete against Hillary whose ratings averaged 50% to 65% since 1998?


Republican Party Favorability | Pew Research Center

Why can't republicans get their ratings up, Grim? With such low ratings how could they could compete against Hillary in an election?

You know something... I don't know and don't really care.

All I did was respond to the post you made to start this thread, where you accused the republicans of being responsible for the majority of the American people not trusting or approving of Hillary Clinton:

Well, the easiest way would be to bring her ratings down to their level.

I don't think I need to go into detail about what Republicans did over the last four years to bring Hillary's ratings down suffice it to say it was so obvious from day one what they were doing and what their objective was and anyone who fell for it...shame on you.

Anyway, I just wonder why Republicans think they can't win unless they bring their opponents ratings down, instead of trying to make their own rise up?

You are dead wrong... Hillary Clinton's actions are why the American people don't trust her... They see her for what she is, a slimey, secretive, lying, untrustworthy politician.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Gun rights supporters have been one issue voters for decades...and are calucated into the Republican base. They weren't going to vote Hillary anyway....so stop trying to change the subject.

I'm a supporter of gun rights, and I am most certainly not a 'one-issue voter (whatever that is)'...

 

[Frank Apisa]

The answer to this thread......

That's more of an indication of the decline in American intellect than a reflection of her qualities or qualifications

Does this photo give you warm fuzzies.........or chills?
View attachment 67202722

I think it is a fine picture of two competent, attractive people...one being the current president of the United States and the other to be his successor to that office.

 

[Moot]

You know something... I don't know and don't really care.

All I did was respond to the post you made to start this thread, where you accused the republicans of being responsible for the majority of the American people not trusting or approving of Hillary Clinton:



You are dead wrong... Hillary Clinton's actions are why the American people don't trust her... They see her for what she is, a slimey, secretive, lying, untrustworthy politician.

She used a personal blackberry and server and there is no law or policy against it. And you think that's what brought her ratings down? Or perhaps they came down because of the political witch hunt and the extreme, hyperbolic, incendiary language that you and the right wing echo chamber use to describe her. If you repeat a lie often enough...people start to believe it. Are you familiar with the Big Lie, Grim? You should be because you do it often enough.

 

[Moot]

I'm a supporter of gun rights, and I am most certainly not a 'one-issue voter (whatever that is)'...

So what issue is more important to you than gun rights? Because most avid gun rights supporters don't have one.

 

[Moot]

We suspect that Donald Trump's foreign policy may be dangerously incoherent, based on what he has said. We know that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is dangerously incoherent, based on what she has done. Why her popularity has seen a recent surge is beyond comprehension, until we consider the phenomenal ignorance of the voting public, which is the obvious explanation of the fact that we're looking at a "choice" between two thin-skinned dishonest avaricious egoists.

Actually, I was kind of impressed with Hillary's endurance, patience and grace during that ridiculous 11 hour hearing put on by that clown, Tray Gowdy. I don't think Trump would've lasted an hour under that kind of pressure before he said something stupidly incriminating. Especially, since the point of the hearing was to try and break her and get her to say something they could use against her in their political attack ads. But they got nothing....NOTHING...except egg on their faces. hahaha.

While Hillary's ratings went up....

Hillary Clinton's standing with the public rises after Benghazi testimony, poll finds - LA Times

 

[Abbazorkzog]

So what issue is more important to you than gun rights? Because most avid gun rights supporters don't have one.

Getting big money out of politics and ending the military junta/military-industrialism/industrial-militarism strangling our government and shamelessly wrecking our image the world over...
(...and needlessly getting thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children killed quite regularly).

 

[Captain Adverse]

Did I say there were more than two tweets? #WhiteGenocide is an "influencer" ...

No one gives a rats patootie about who "#WhiteGenocide" is except people like you who conflate re-tweeting a funny pic from this random tweeter with supporting racism. Trying to build a bonfire out of a dry toothpick.

So when Trump re-tweets users who follow #WhiteGenocide he is retweeting more than just two tweeters....he's actually retweeting hundreds of white supremacists to thousands of their racist followers. See how that works?

Gee, who knew that re-tweeting meant sharing something one tweeter sent with all the members of your own tweet following? Yes all the million of "closest personal friends" who have added one to their list? I wonder how many of those millions of random people took this picture to be anything other than what Trump himself did; a funny joke by some random tweeter they could not care less about personally? :roll:

It's funny that you should mention George Wallace since I had already mentioned him earlier in this thread....to you.

Well, nice to see you mentioning him, but not proving that Trump is a racist with your prior allusion.

Your attempts to make Trump out to be a racist simply because other racists support him has been debunked several times in this thread. I oppose our current immigration policies for all the reason stated and referenced in this forum, as provided for in a link. I oppose the free trade agreements which have benefited corporations and their investors, but pretty much no one else economically. I am concerned about the clear and present danger of un-vetted muslim migrants because many consider us the "Great Satan" (with good reason perhaps) and seek to come do us harm. NONE of those things makes me a racist. None of those things makes Trump a racist. Your repetitive guilt by implied-association notwithstanding.

You arguments are character assassination, nothing more.

Gun rights supporters have been one issue voters for decades...and are calucated into the Republican base. They weren't going to vote Hillary anyway....so stop trying to change the subject.

As if there are no gun rights supporters in the Democratic party? Voters who normally vote the Party line, except in times like these when one or more SCOTUS seats are open for appointment by the President? Not to mention all the Independent voters like myself who normally vote third party or not at all? Stop thinking this issue is just Republican Hardliners vs Democratic Hardliners. THOSE types of votes are already calculated into each Party's base.

Meanwhile, people like yourself seem to overlook the fact that Trump go where he is now despite such calculations of the Republican Party, and Sanders #NeverHillary supporters were never considered in the Democratic calculations.

So once again...Don't Count your Chickens Before They Hatch! Something this election should have taught everyone by now. :coffeepap:

 

[Grim17]

She used a personal blackberry and server and there is no law or policy against it.

Wow, spouting Hillary's dishonest talking points (aka, lies), tells me just how misinformed you really are. The blackberry was a no-go from the very beginning, which was discovered by an email correspondence she had with one of her aides. After you digest that, I suggest you read the IG report released a week and a half ago, which states that Hillary was supposed to inform the IT department about using a private email server, but never did... If she had, the report states that there is no way that they would have approved its use, which appears to be the reason she kept it a secret in the first place.

And you think that's what brought her ratings down?

ABSOLUTELY

The overwhelming majority of people don't look at Hillary's email controversy through the fog of partisan politics. Their common sense tells them right away that the whole situation, from top to bottom, stinks of government cover-up, secrecy and political shenanigans. She has lied to the public at every turn on this issue, yet you are dumbfounded as to why the majority of Americans don't trust her... Just WOW!

Or perhaps they came down because of the political witch hunt and the extreme, hyperbolic, incendiary language that you and the right wing echo chamber use to describe her.

Good lord... You either work for the Clinton campaign, or you've been brainwashed by them... because I can't think of anything else that would explain how you could be so oblivious to all the shady crap that has surrounded both her and her husband over the last 20+ years.

If you repeat a lie often enough...people start to believe it.

You are the living proof of that for sure, because you've bought into her lies lock, stock and barrel.

Are you familiar with the Big Lie, Grim?

Yes, I'm familiar with all the things Hillary Clinton has said about her private email server.

You should be because you do it often enough.

Care to back up that accusation?

Of course you don't, because you can't... You can manufacture phony accusation all day long, but what you can't do is manufacture proof... Which will be clear to all shortly, when you fail to substantiate your lie.

And for the record, you never once attempted to dispute the things about hillary I posted and everyone on this forum knows why.