It should be about 20%.
Coming from fox news?
I wonder how trump took that.
lol Probably crying "CNN made them say that". lol
I hope it keeps falling, right off the charts.
It won't be long now, Mueller is closing in on him, that's why he's trying to change the subject to Hillary and the uranium crap. Anything to get the focus off of him.
Won't be just her. Trump will throw everyone under the bus to save his own dimple ass.
That's for darn sure.
Yeah, you couldn't miss "Captain Trump". He was the guy in the high heels, sitting in the life boot.
In high heels? At his height?
He'd never pass for a woman, unless maybe they just looked at his hands.
Try again, dru.
I didn't say he would be normal looking or pretty.
So just the high heels got him on board the lifeboat?
Apparently, it did, Stinkerbell, because there was such an incident.
Now, you keep trying.
Yes, there supposedly was, but the real guy who did that wasn't 6'3" and he didn't weigh 236 lbs.
Try again, dru.
P.S Snopes thinks the story isn't true.
My great grandmother still had the clippings, and yes, there was such a person.
And no, it did not list his height or weight.
Read the Snopes reference I gave you.
"The man most victimized by this rumor was William T. Sloper of New Britain, Connecticut, who was publicly identified in a New York newspaper as “the man who got off in woman’s clothing.” Sloper actually left the Titanic in lifeboat No. 7, the first boat launched, after he was invited to take a seat with motion picture actress Dorothy Gibson and her mother, who had been his bridge companions earlier that evening. Because many passengers did not yet comprehend the gravity of the Titanic‘s situation and were unwilling to trade the warmth and apparent safety of their berths for a seat in an open boat on the freezing Atlantic in the middle of the night, lifeboat No. 7 was filled to only about a third of its 65-passenger capacity, and the officer in charge of its loading therefore freely allowed Sloper aboard. Boat No. 7 was eventually launched with only 28 occupants, so neither Sloper nor any other man who wanted a seat within it would have had to disguise himself as a woman to sneak aboard."
Try again, dru. You flopped yet again.
So, according to your reference, one of them was with a group of firemen and sailors who refused to leave a lifeboat, not because he was taken for a woman.
A second was discovered with a shawl over his head, and "pitched in" by the officer who discovered him.
The third "jumped 30 feet into a lifeboat." I hope he didn't damage his high heels.
Try again, dru.
LMAO! What the hell does that even PROVE? That article proved NOTHING!
Snopes isn't the only one that says the newspaper story was false.
"Angry at Sloper's refusal to talk to the press, a New York Herald reporter ran a story stating that Sloper had behaved like a coward and had disguised himself as a woman in order to get access to a lifeboat. Unfortunately, Sloper heeded the advice of his father and did not immediately challenge the veracity of the story. Lacking a public challenge, the story was widely believed, and Sloper had to spend much of the rest of his life refuting the false allegation. It haunted him."
Try again, dru.
And I can give links that prove it was true.
I think I will stick with the original newspaper clippings.
Keep on trying, because you ain't making it.
And they are now sending out their socks to bait people. They are so desperate at this point, they will stoop to Trump's level now. Pathetic.
I heard this morning it had dropped to 32%. Each day it lower and lower.
Hey...i watch a little, too. Listen to limbaugh once in a while, too.
Feel like it helps me to understand the right a bit better. But..rush usually leaves me, needing a shower:[
Have you watched Tucker Carlson? He destroys the arguments of one or more doctrinaire lib guests every weekday evening.
I have. It all seems rather...set up.
Why would his liberal guests agree to be set up?
I dont know how "in on it" they are. But...i know they dont go on those shows for free.
Well, the guests must know the debate agenda beforehand, so it seems to me the alternatives are:
1. They think they can defend their untenable positions, but just don't know any better, pay or no pay.
2. They know what's in store, but are quite willing to act as losing shills for pay.
It might vary from guest to guest as to which of these alternatives may apply, but given the apparent character of most politicians and political activists, neither alternative would surprise me.
Yeah, I also remember, fondly, when he got his argumentative ass kicked off of cable.
Yes, he was much too good at making fools of liberals on CNN and MSNBC.
That's why he was out of work for quite awhile.
Of course. Carlson had to wait for O'Reilly's time slot on Fox to become vacant. O'Reilly is of the Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein school, when it comes to women.
Meanwhile, no MSM network would hire Carlson; he made their liberal shills look much too stupid.
Oh shit, nobody has ever shelled out 32 million before, which makes me wonder just how pervy he is.
Yeah, you wish he was Bill Clinton.
He worked on CNN for quite awhile. I guess he wasn't too good at making "liberal shills" look stupid.
Carslon was only on CNN for about 5 years.
Compare that with Blitzer and Cooper, who have been on that network for 17 and 16 years, respectively, because they do the libby dance so well.
So now you are criticizing those that can hold down a job?
They held down their CNN jobs by being abject lib party-liners.
Naturally someone who made doctrinaire libs look like the fools they are wouldn't last at CNN. Not part of the business plan.
Try again, dru.
Actually, it has been reported that CNN helped Trump, not Hillary, and that includes Cooper.
They won't make that mistake again.
What are you doing to that poor thing?
Yes, CNN (like the rest of the MSM) did help Trump get the Republican nomination, because they thought he would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to beat in the general election.
But if CNN wanted Trump to win against Hillary, then Blitzer should get an Oscar for his acting performance on election night.
Yeah, they made a BIG mistake, but not when you think.
I'm not doing anything to that poor thing, just watching it trying to make a leap it can't negotiate.
Except that liberal parrots have no stings, only bumper sticker talking points.
Be careful, Bub, you might get de-programmed, and need an extra booster dose of MSNBC.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.
I am not a Trump fan. He wasn't my choice. But he is The President and as such deserves a decorum of respect. I do believe the constant barrage of misleading and false narratives put forward by many in the mainstream media are harmful, they have forgotten they serve the people and not their own political views.
Trump isn't the only one who needs to up his game. There is work to do on many levels to gain the trust of Americans...
20% Approval of Congress
32% Approval of Media
Yaaaaaawwn... I seem to recall pollsters admitting they didn't know squat after the last election. I know they royally screwed up in my state where aggregated polls had Clinton winning the primary by over 20 points (Sanders won), then had her winning the general election by nearly 58 points, which she also lost.
While Fox viewers are primarily right-wingers, Trump won most of his voters by default. Very few Trump voters I know, online or off, were/are actual Trump supporters. He was elected by people voting against Clinton. He had/has many detractors even among pols within the Republican party. This has never been any great secret, Vic.
No, it never has been a great secret, but libs at all costs want to keep it as quiet as possible what a corrupt candidate Hillary was, and indeed how corrupt the DNC was/is.
And the evidence just keeps pouring in on an hourly basis.
Yeppers... Yeppers... Yeppers...
Just fine, thanks, JD, and you?
No, I've been making rude comments almost every day.
Only libs think they're rude, so you can read them.
Where have you been, Vic? It's been at 38%, give or take a point, for over five months, and this isn't the first time Fox has mentioned it.
Yes a poll conduct by FOX presumably from its own viewership.
Holy presumably, Batman!
For the past 5 months, Fox viewers have been only a few points more favorable towards Trump than the general public?
The metallic gentleman doth presume too much, methinks.
Once again, you're trying too hard.
Keep trying, dru. Maybe you'll make it.
Yeah, so Fox was typically 2-3 points higher over the last 5 months than the data I cited above. Still within the noise level. Hardly a "holy bottomless pit, Batman."
Hardly a "holy bottomless pit, Batman".
You never make it out of the Batcave, Bub.
Polls didn't put Trump in the oval office, it was the silent voters who just went to the polls and voted their conscience. I wouldn't put too much faith in polling.
That must have been an MSNBC poll.
Oh, wait... MSNBC would have been about 2%, the viewers that had never heard of Trump.
Oh, btw, Uncle Vic, here is a FOX poll that was cited on an MSNBC panel discussion. The panelists were confidently assuring each other that Trump would never win the nomination, much less the election.
Holy bottomless pit, Batman! The FOX poll said 59% of likely Republican primary voters "would never vote for" Trump.
Well this poll is 92 - 8% right now.
Oh, really? The FOX poll right now says 92% of likely Republican voters would never vote for Trump? Go back and read the comment again.
If you meant 8% of Trump voters now said they wouldn't vote for him again, 15% of Hillary voters have said they wouldn't vote for her again.
Not at all. I meant this poll - this OP, at that moment was 92% agree 8% disagree.
It's is about as relevant to this discussion as any comment you have made thus far.
Yes, Uncle Vic, your OP poll is about as relevant to the truth as the polls published in the NY Times were until the late evening of Nov 8, 2016.
Oh, wait, I forgot, there is no truth. Maybe we can't be sure Trump is president at all.
We can't. Glad you finally caught on.
Of course the verb "is" is key - as pointed out by Clinton.
We have much more confidence in past events, current events are nearly impossible to get right, the future? slightly better than present. Yet none can be 'known' beyond all doubt.
-At this moment the status of the statement "Trump is president" is in the same state as Schrodinger's infamous feline companion.
-It is almost 100% certain he was president yesterday (but maybe not)
-Tomorrow is anyone's guess.
"...current events are nearly impossible to get right..."
Really? Maybe Trump isn't in Asia right now? It's all being staged, as some say the Moon landings were?
"At this moment the status of the statement "Trump is president" is in the same state as Schrodinger's infamous feline companion."
You're wrong yet again, Uncle Vic. The current state of Schroedinger's cat was unknown to an outside observer because the box the cat was in had not yet been opened. Trump's box, on the other hand, is frequently opened, often many times a day, so his current state is well known.
As is/was the cat box in all practicality.
As soon a there is a broadcast showing Trump alive the probability that he is still president goes to near 100% however there is a split second delay. He might not be alive the next second. Of course you will point out that he would still be president until congress acts to invoke succession.
But I will not be responding any more because we've had this discussion and your mind cannot seem to grasp the concept that we just don't have hive mentality and cannot know what is happening on the other side of the planet instantaneously.
"...cannot know what is happening on the other side of the planet instantaneously...."
OMG, Uncle Vic, have you forgotten quantum entanglement already? John Stewart Bell would be ashamed of you.
And of course you won't respond.
FOX. JD, FOX.
This might be the first time I ever agreed with you.