[gwnn]

Not to mention the metric system.

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2017-April-24, 10:22, said:

Not to mention the metric system.

LOL

Rik

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on 2017-April-24, 10:22, said:

Not to mention the metric system.

I thought you said, Don't mention it???

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-24, 09:16, said:

Drain the swamp? OK. With this proviso: of slime.

On a more serious note, I understand Trump's abysmal approval ratings. I understand how 53% are fooled into thinking he is a strong leader. I cannot understand why 96% of his voters would vote for him again. Truly, it baffles me that so many are so deeply conned.

When the data does not support your model do you ever consider that your model might not be an accurate reflection of reality?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 13:26, said:

When the data does not support your model do you ever consider that your model might not be an accurate reflection of reality?

His approval rating is 40%. He won the election with 46% of the vote. I would ask you the same question.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-24, 13:56, said:

His approval rating is 40%. He won the election with 46% of the vote. I would ask you the same question.

Trump did win the election with 46% of the vote. A recent poll shows that 96% of his voters would vote for him again. The following links provides a detailed demographic breakdown of Trump voters. Note there are a significant number of educated and financially successful voters. Your belief that all of those voters have been conned would seem to be a bit of hyperbole. If your model posits that Trump voters are ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, etc., you might want to realign your model to match what the demographics tells you.

http://anepigone.blo...wn-of-2016.html

http://edition.cnn.c...ults/exit-polls

My model posits that Trump voters, like Clinton voters, are a mixture from all demographic groups, are of normally distributed intelligence, etc. Trump voters appear to be motivated by a different set of priorities than Clinton voters. That different set of priorities does not appear to have changed significantly since the election, hence the Trump voters would still vote for Trump, i.e., for their priorities.

[awm]

There isn't really a contradiction. All the statistics show is that there's a significant minority of Trump voters who both:

1. Disapprove of his job performance.
2. Do not regret voting for him.

Keep in mind that the election was basically a binary choice between Trump and Clinton. A Trump voter could easily be unhappy that (for example) there are still Muslims coming into the US when Trump said he would ban them, or that construction on the wall hasn't started yet, or that Obamacare (which he said he would repeal on day one) is still there, etc. Yet this does not mean they wish they'd voted for Clinton (who did not even say she would do any of those things which Trump said he would do but has so far failed to do).

[ldrews]

awm, on 2017-April-24, 15:07, said:

There isn't really a contradiction. All the statistics show is that there's a significant minority of Trump voters who both:

1. Disapprove of his job performance.
2. Do not regret voting for him.

Keep in mind that the election was basically a binary choice between Trump and Clinton. A Trump voter could easily be unhappy that (for example) there are still Muslims coming into the US when Trump said he would ban them, or that construction on the wall hasn't started yet, or that Obamacare (which he said he would repeal on day one) is still there, etc. Yet this does not mean they wish they'd voted for Clinton (who did not even say she would do any of those things which Trump said he would do but has so far failed to do).

I agree. The fact that Trump is attempting to address the issues that are important to his voters, even if not yet successful in all of them, seems to keep them in the fold.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 14:47, said:

Trump did win the election with 46% of the vote. A recent poll shows that 96% of his voters would vote for him again. The following links provides a detailed demographic breakdown of Trump voters. Note there are a significant number of educated and financially successful voters. Your belief that all of those voters have been conned would seem to be a bit of hyperbole. If your model posits that Trump voters are ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, etc., you might want to realign your model to match what the demographics tells you.

http://anepigone.blo...wn-of-2016.html

http://edition.cnn.c...ults/exit-polls

My model posits that Trump voters, like Clinton voters, are a mixture from all demographic groups, are of normally distributed intelligence, etc. Trump voters appear to be motivated by a different set of priorities than Clinton voters. That different set of priorities does not appear to have changed significantly since the election, hence the Trump voters would still vote for Trump, i.e., for their priorities.

He conned you - I don't consider you, and I quote, ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, etc. Being duped is a human trait and we all are susceptible at times.

[ldrews]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 15:17, said:

I agree. The fact that Trump is attempting to address the issues that are important to his voters, even if not yet successful in all of them, seems to keep them in the fold.

Well, if so, I have to hand it to Trump. As a lifelong cynic (realist?) I am pretty skeptical of anything political. I am sure there are thousands just like me. So if Trump has conned us all then he is indeed a master. Presumably he will be able to apply that talent in foreign relations, domestic legislative efforts, etc. Perhaps we are lucky to have such an accomplished con man as President.

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 16:05, said:

Well, if so, I have to hand it to Trump. As a lifelong cynic (realist?) I am pretty skeptical of anything political. I am sure there are thousands just like me. So if Trump has conned us all then he is indeed a master. Presumably he will be able to apply that talent in foreign relations, domestic legislative efforts, etc. Perhaps we are lucky to have such an accomplished con man as President.

There are two problems with this theory:
1. Trump can con you since neither of you have a clue about NAFTA or healthcare. So he can tell you whatever he wants about it, and you'll believe it But when he discusses North Korea policy with the Chinese president, the latter is quite well informed and can thus quickly talk Trump out of anything he wanted to ask. http://www.vox.com/2...a-xi-10-minutes
2. You are assuming that Trump will use his con man skills (which I agree are genuine skills) to further your (or the USA's) interests. Well, I doubt it. I'd think he wants to look good on TV, and he wants to make money. At least, the latter is going well (DC hotel getting lots of bookings from foreign governments; Mar-A-Lago getting lots of government money; Chinese investors offering 200 million $ debt forgiveness to Trump's kids, etc.) In fact, many investors or Trump University students thought the same (that they'd benefit from Trump's con man skills), and instead they got conned.

As I said before, you will get your wish on making lifes miserable for minorities in the US - Jeff Sessions is a skillful politician and has a life-long commitment to that cause. I doubt you'll get anything else from Trump.

[ldrews]

cherdano, on 2017-April-24, 17:01, said:

There are two problems with this theory:
1. Trump can con you since neither of you have a clue about NAFTA or healthcare. So he can tell you whatever he wants about it, and you'll believe it But when he discusses North Korea policy with the Chinese president, the latter is quite well informed and can thus quickly talk Trump out of anything he wanted to ask. http://www.vox.com/2...a-xi-10-minutes
2. You are assuming that Trump will use his con man skills (which I agree are genuine skills) to further your (or the USA's) interests. Well, I doubt it. I'd think he wants to look good on TV, and he wants to make money. At least, the latter is going well (DC hotel getting lots of bookings from foreign governments; Mar-A-Lago getting lots of government money; Chinese investors offering 200 million $ debt forgiveness to Trump's kids, etc.) In fact, many investors or Trump University students thought the same (that they'd benefit from Trump's con man skills), and instead they got conned.

As I said before, you will get your wish on making lifes miserable for minorities in the US - Jeff Sessions is a skillful politician and has a life-long commitment to that issue. I doubt you'll get anything else from Trump.

Aren't you ignoring all of the Executive Orders that have been issued. All seem to be aligned with Trump's campaign promises. And he did manage to get his Supreme Court pick confirmed, again in line with his campaign promise. Given this history, short as it is, why do you think he is solely interested in himself? And if his self-interest motivates him to try to solve some of the nation's problems, isn't that a good thing?

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 17:07, said:

Aren't you ignoring all of the Executive Orders that have been issued. All seem to be aligned with Trump's campaign promises. And he did manage to get his Supreme Court pick confirmed, again in line with his campaign promise. Given this history, short as it is, why do you think he is solely interested in himself? And if his self-interest motivates him to try to solve some of the nation's problems, isn't that a good thing?

I knew he did con you with these press releases disguised as executive orders
Lots of things are disturbing about Trump, but at least he often gives us a reason to make fun of ldrews.

P.S.: Good to know you appreciate the efforts from cranky racist-in-chief Jeff Sessions.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 16:05, said:

Well, if so, I have to hand it to Trump. As a lifelong cynic (realist?) I am pretty skeptical of anything political. I am sure there are thousands just like me. So if Trump has conned us all then he is indeed a master. Presumably he will be able to apply that talent in foreign relations, domestic legislative efforts, etc. Perhaps we are lucky to have such an accomplished con man as President.

If you are one of Trump's oligarchs, you will do well; otherwise, you are just another schmuck who, like the rest of us, are in for a royal Trump schtupping.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 16:05, said:

Well, if so, I have to hand it to Trump. As a lifelong cynic (realist?) I am pretty skeptical of anything political. I am sure there are thousands just like me. So if Trump has conned us all then he is indeed a master. Presumably he will be able to apply that talent in foreign relations, domestic legislative efforts, etc. Perhaps we are lucky to have such an accomplished con man as President.

The Big Con you bought into is Trump selling himself as capable.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-24, 17:48, said:

The Big Con you bought into is Trump selling himself as capable.

Well, it has been less than 100 days. Let's see what it looks like after a couple of years.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 17:55, said:

Well, it has been less than 100 days. Let's see what it looks like after a couple of years.

Why not look at his history instead?

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on 2017-April-24, 10:19, said:

For those of you who like Trump giving roles to Ivanka and Jared Kushner, John Oliver's main story last night was about them. Particularly, how little we really know about them. When Ivanka has given interviews, she's been as evasive as Donald when asked for details. She's very poised and seems rational, but we don't know what she really thinks about policies, or if she would actually be a check on Donald's extremism. And there's practically nothing in Jared's business experience to suggest he's ready for all the responsibility he's been given (he took over his father's real estate business after dad was convicted of several white-collar crimes).

https://www.youtube....h?v=wD8AwgO0AQI

There is something to be said for experienced crooks....they tend to hide their tracks better and get caught less.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-24, 19:43, said:

Why not look at his history instead?

Political history or real estate history? He has no political history before the campaign. But he hijacked the Republican Party, defeated 17 established political competitors, and then defeated one of the strongest political machines in the last century, Hillary Clinton and the DNC. His real estate history is relatively successful for real estate developers/operators. He did amass 6 billion dollars or so in a very competitive, tough real estate market, New York City. So I would assume that he has a fair degree of "street smarts".

So, what was your point?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 20:39, said:

Political history or real estate history? He has no political history before the campaign. But he hijacked the Republican Party, defeated 17 established political competitors, and then defeated one of the strongest political machines in the last century, Hillary Clinton and the DNC. His real estate history is relatively successful for real estate developers/operators. He did amass 6 billion dollars or so in a very competitive, tough real estate market, New York City. So I would assume that he has a fair degree of "street smarts".

So, what was your point?

My point? What happened to skepticism? You buy into Trump's self-promotion as if it is gospel itself, LoL. Sad. Bigly.

But, on the other hand, how can you not trust someone who says this to the Associated Press:

Quote

The opponents are talking $25 billion for the wall. It’s not going to cost anywhere near that.

AP: You think $10 billion or less.

TRUMP: I think $10 billion or less. And if I do a super-duper, higher, better, better security, everything else, maybe it goes a little bit more.

So now we have a super-duper, higher, better, better security president, and if he only costs us $10 billion it will be a miracle.