The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.

[ClimateSanity]

Town said " Meaning that if the remaining 10 percent wake up we can look more like our ideas and less like irrationally frightened people willing to make Franklin roll in his grave."

Perhaps your understanding of our ideas is erroneous. Perhaps your judgement of us being irrationally frightened people is erroneous. Perhaps your understanding of what Franklin would approve of are erroneous and perhaps you haven't considered that not all the founding fathers agreed on all matters.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Right. That something is your thinking, given 48% of the people could love him and that would still leave a popularity rating under 50%.

I never said 48℅ loved him. He has been personally unpopular ever since he announced his run for the presidency. His personal approval is not as important as the popularity of his ideas. All that low approval poll in 8 days shows is that his personality and character have never been seen in a favorable light and all it took was a highly volatile issue blown out of proportion by a opposition press to bring that firmly established fact of how people don't like him much to the fore

 

[ok doser]

I told him before the election why his polls were bogus.

IIRC, town's polls had Hillary winning

:think:








:darwinsm:

 

[ClimateSanity]

Dup

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

He's British. His opinion is irrelevant.

"We don't want to have to bail you guys out again like after WW II." ~ Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery

Not only that but even Trump has higher standards than them female lookers in their political department, so, "what are they on about" when it comes to him visiting them?

 

[fool]

So, another Trump milestone. This political moment brought to you by Forbes

It Took Trump A Record 8 Days To Reach Majority Disapproval


According to the article every president runs into a disapproval rating under 50%. The following notes several of those and the number of days it took to manage it.

Reagan: 727, or just under two years in.

Bush, Sr.: 1,336, or 3.6 years in.

Clinton: 573, or around one and a half years in.

Bush, Jr.: 1,205, or about 3.3 years in.

Obama: 936, or about 2.5 years in.

Trump: 8 days in.

:mock: the Trump "mandate". lain:

"I didn't say it would be Easy, I said it would be Worth It"

 

[fool]

trump got 46.1% of the vote on november 6th

that sure looks like a 53.9% disapproval to me :idunno:

Bill Clinton got 43% in 92:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

 

[fool]

Right. That something is your thinking, given 48% of the people could love him and that would still leave a popularity rating under 50%.

I don't think it will ever get above 50%, or even close.
It's tough love.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Not only that but even Trump has higher standards than them female lookers in their political department, so, "what are they on about" when it comes to him visiting them?

Unless they get to thinkin' he's a rock star, then hey, anything might be up for grabs. :crackup:

 

[ok doser]

Unless they get to thinkin' he's a rock star, then hey, anything might be up for grabs. :crackup:

do not open!

Spoiler

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

do not open!

Spoiler

I've heard of melon collie, but what's that?

 

[ok doser]

i don't know but i love it!


ran across this one too:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

i don't know but i love it!


ran across this one too:

Okay, one more then I'll stop.

First and only time I ever saw anybody wearin' tinfoil on their head, it was a big round woman over here from Britain at a concert where the Cars was one of the bands.

Arrowhead stadium back in the 70's.

Just sayin'.

 

[Crucible]

So, another Trump milestone. This political moment brought to you by Forbes

It Took Trump A Record 8 Days To Reach Majority Disapproval


According to the article every president runs into a disapproval rating under 50%. The following notes several of those and the number of days it took to manage it.

Reagan: 727, or just under two years in.

Bush, Sr.: 1,336, or 3.6 years in.

Clinton: 573, or around one and a half years in.

Bush, Jr.: 1,205, or about 3.3 years in.

Obama: 936, or about 2.5 years in.

Trump: 8 days in.

:mock: the Trump "mandate". lain:

This country is currently plagued with a bunch of crybabies. They'll eventually simmer down in their cradles

 

[ok doser]

Forget the hysterical mainstream media -- America likes Trump’s agenda, including his immigration pivot Liz Peek By Liz Peek Published January 30, 2017 FoxNews.com Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print Now Playing Poll shows Americans support Trump's refugee ban Never autoplay videos In its hysteria-driven coverage of President Trump’s immigration order, the mainstream media forgot to mention this: most of the country supports it. A recent Quinnipiac poll indicated that 48 percent of the nation approves of "suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees," while 42 percent oppose such a measure. In contrast, Americans did not agree with Obama’s decision to open the door to more Syrian refugees; at the end of 2015, a Quinnipiac poll revealed that 51 percent of the country stood against the move, while only 43 percent supported it. There is the problem for Democrats -- even as they rant and rave over Donald Trump’s assault on the progressive values of the elite establishment, consumer confidence has soared to 12-year highs. How can that be? Here’s the key, which the mainstream media has ignored for eight years: President Obama was personally popular, but his policies were not. Conversely, President Trump personally scores low approval ratings, but he is pushing an agenda that has the support of most Americans. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...s-agenda-including-his-immigration-pivot.html

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This country is currently plagued with a bunch of crybabies. They'll eventually simmer down in their cradles

Mean while I'll have a coke.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town said " Meaning that if the remaining 10 percent wake up we can look more like our ideas and less like irrationally frightened people willing to make Franklin roll in his grave."

Let it never be said that you failed to get anything right in one of your posts. Bravo. That's exactly what I said.

Perhaps your understanding of our ideas is erroneous.

Talk to Franklin. He had your sort pegged a few hundred years ago. But no, we are a nation of immigrants and the lady in New York harbor sums one founding truth about us that is endangered by frightened men, governed by shadows instead of reason.

Perhaps your judgement of us being irrationally frightened people is erroneous.

Like I said once a long time ago, maybe the sky's a blue ribbon that hangs on a hook, but I wouldn't bet the baby's milk money on it.

Perhaps your understanding of what Franklin would approve of are erroneous

No, I can read fairly well and I've read him. "T[FONT=alright_sansmediumitalic]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/FONT]

I even know what revisionists partisans have attempted to make of it, via Wittes, who would have you believe that liberty is not a part of the sentence where it rests. A neat trick.

and perhaps you haven't considered that not all the founding fathers agreed on all matters.

I not only consider it, I've noted it often enough in relation to the slave trade. But the feelings of those men don't alter the underlying truth of the matter I noted a moment ago, that we are a nation of immigrants, enlivened, expanded and founded by them. Closing ranks in fear of the other is beneath us.

 

[ok doser]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

and there it is, the most often misapplied quote of Franklin's today!

usually produced by clueless retarded liberals

good job, town! :thumb:



now, for the kiddies following along at home, try to make the case that Franklin was equating "essential liberty" with "porous borders", "illegal immigration" and "islamic terrorists"


but be warned - if you're successful, you may just turn out to be retarded

and liberal

which is, of course, redundant

 

[Town Heretic]

I never said 48℅ loved him.

Me either. I also didn't look at the one issue and at the post I made about his falling under 50% approval and find something incongruous in it. You did.

He has been personally unpopular ever since he announced his run for the presidency.

All the more reason for you to wonder at your wondering.

His personal approval is not as important as the popularity of his ideas.

That's funny. Did you mean for it to be?

All that low approval poll in 8 days shows is that his personality and character have never been seen in a favorable light and all it took was a highly volatile issue blown out of proportion by a opposition press to bring that firmly established fact of how people don't like him much to the fore

Or, all that was needed was a dose of what he really brings to the table to begin to wither hopes of those who stood along the margins in support.

 

[ok doser]

Ben Franklin's Famous 'Liberty, Safety' Quote Lost Its Context In 21st Century Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of Lawfare, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that it wasn't originally meant to mean what people think. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Ben Franklin was innovative, but it's fair to say that he didn't imagine a future of cellphones and of all the privacy issues that come with them. Still, his words are often applied to such issues. Take our conversation last week about police technologies with Virginia State Delegate Richard Anderson. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST) RICHARD ANDERSON: Very simply - and I'm paraphrasing here - but Ben Franklin essentially said at one point, those who would trade privacy for a bit of security deserve neither privacy nor security. SIEGEL: Now, Anderson did say he was paraphrasing, but a few of you wrote in anyway saying, hey, that's not the quote. So we're going to clear things up right now. Benjamin Wittes, editor of the website Lawfare and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, joins us. Hi. BENJAMIN WITTES: Hey. SIEGEL: What's the exact quotation? WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark? WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation. WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/39024...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century