Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Rory » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:45 pm
by seemslikeadream » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:48 pm
seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:57 pm wrote:Rory » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:27 pm wrote:https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/15/poll-president-trumps-approval-rating-is-on-the-rise/21897249/President Donald Trump has seen a significant positive shift in his polling numbers according to the latest Morning Consult poll.
For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing, according to the Morning Consult/POLITICO survey. The president's approval rating is at 52 percent, which is the first time he's cracked the 50-50 mark in this specific survey.Rory » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:27 pm wrote:https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/15/poll-president-trumps-approval-rating-is-on-the-rise/21897249/President Donald Trump has seen a significant positive shift in his polling numbers according to the latest Morning Consult poll.
For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing, according to the Morning Consult/POLITICO survey. The president's approval rating is at 52 percent, which is the first time he's cracked the 50-50 mark in this specific survey.Rory » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:27 pm wrote:https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/15/poll-president-trumps-approval-rating-is-on-the-rise/21897249/President Donald Trump has seen a significant positive shift in his polling numbers according to the latest Morning Consult poll.
For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing, according to the Morning Consult/POLITICO survey. The president's approval rating is at 52 percent, which is the first time he's cracked the 50-50 mark in this specific survey.Rory » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:27 pm wrote:https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/15/poll-president-trumps-approval-rating-is-on-the-rise/21897249/President Donald Trump has seen a significant positive shift in his polling numbers according to the latest Morning Consult poll.
For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing, according to the Morning Consult/POLITICO survey. The president's approval rating is at 52 percent, which is the first time he's cracked the 50-50 mark in this specific survey.
by seemslikeadream » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:50 pm
The HillVerified account
@thehill
Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort hires crisis communications firm http://hill.cm/MpHgDER
SPYTALK
TRUMP, COMEY, RUSSIA AND A SERIES OF STRANGER THINGS
BY JEFF STEIN ON 3/21/17 AT 7:49 AM
Setup Timeout Error: Setup took longer than 30 seconds to complete.
SPYTALKDONALD TRUMPJAMES COMEYRUSSIA
It was like a decomposed corpse washing up on the river bank during a massive flood. It came in the form of a brief, cryptic tweet in the whoosh of running online commentary on FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee: “After my sister visited Paul Manafort's hometown as part of her investigation: attempted home break-in, her phone/comp. Hacked, car trashed 2x.”
You had to be at least a part-time detective on the Trump-Russia beat to get the clues. The name of the tweeter, Andrea Chalupa, rang a bell. I looked her up. The sister she referenced was Alexandra, an operative for the Democratic National Committee who in 2015 had begun digging into the affairs of Donald Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort. Since the bigtime D.C. lobbyist for developing world kleptocracies was close to pro-Russia elements in Ukraine, Chalupa began to suspect Moscow would have some sort of connection to the Trump campaign. She didn’t pay much attention at first, because Trump’s campaign was just a clown show. But then he got traction and she looked again. And then came the suspected Russian hacks of the DNC, including her own email account. Even stranger things began to happen, as her sister’s tweeted shorthand reminded everyone on Monday afternoon.
Yes, there had been an “attempted home break-in” last year, in her leafy, virtually crime-free neighborhood of northwest Washington, D.C., as Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern reported in January. Her iPhone was hacked, too, and a death-metal track popular in Russia appeared on her playlist. Her car was broken into and trashed twice, with nothing stolen. The second time, the burglar left a red, traditional Ukrainian blouse draped across the back seat. She reported the incidents to the D.C. police and FBI, which by then had opened a counterintelligence investigation into Russian subversion. No arrests have been made.
Related: FBI Director Comey confirms probe into possible Trump-Russia ties
More strange things have happened since, to her and some of her friends, that she’s not ready to go public about. But she did say that, like virtually everyone else in official Washington, she was glued to the TV Monday for the House Intelligence Committee hearing on Moscow’s campaign to destroy Hillary Clinton, put Donald Trump in the White House and rattle Americans’ faith in their core institutions. Over five and a half hours, the star witness of the astonishing event, FBI Director James Comey, absolutely obliterated the credibility of the increasingly unhinged president of the United States.
Chalupa was heartened, she told Newsweek. The hearing “demonstrated the strength of the U.S. government. It was wonderful to watch members of Congress on both sides of the aisle working in partnership with the intelligence community to address an unprecedented national security issue.”
Comey
FBI Director James Comey, left, and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers take their seats at a House Intelligence Committee hearing into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in Washington, D.C., on March 20.
REUTERS/JOSHUA ROBERTS
That last part was generous. Many of the Republicans on the panel gave faint praise to the FBI’s pursuit of Russian subversion, and to Comey’s inalterable declaration that the Russians “wanted to hurt our democracy, hurt her”—Hillary Clinton—and “help him”—Trump. But the diehards in the GOP wanted to talk about leaks, not the substance of them.
Comey and his fellow intelligence chief at the witness table, National Security Agency (NSA) Director Michael Rogers, ritually denounced the leaking of classified information as a crime—and no doubt they mean it in the wake of Edward Snowden’s massive theft and Wikileaks' “weaponization” of other stolen documents.
But they served up helping after helping of Russian subversion to Democrats hungry for vindication. Vladimir Putin, Comey said of the murderous Russian kleptocrat, “hated Clinton so much…he wanted Trump to win.”
One Republican on the panel, Mike Conaway of Texas, asked Comey how he could be so sure the Russians were for Trump. “Logic,” Comey answered, stifling a smirk. If they were against Clinton, who’d pressed a hard line against Putin’s multi-pronged “hybrid war” against Europe and repression of dissidents at home, that meant they were for Trump, whose ties to Russian oligarchs led the Kremlin to think it might get a better deal. At first the Russians “focused on undermining her presidency,” which until Election Day looked like a cinch, Comey said. Trump’s victory was an unexpected bonus.
Lest any Trump supporter hope the feds were through with him after the election, Comey relieved them of that illusion, too. The FBI, he said, was continuing to investigate “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
Translation: The bureau is conducting an open-ended counterintelligence investigation into whether any of Trump’s associates collluded with the Russians. The FBI generally does not open an investigation, much less continue one, unless there’s evidence of a possible crime. And unlike criminal investigations, which generally require indictments from grand juries at some point, the FBI’s counterintelligence probe of Russian subversion and Trump’s associates could remain open for months, even years. Comey also said the FBI will conduct “an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”
The upshot: Barring some unforeseen development, the Trump White House will feel the drip, drip, drip of the bureau’s multiple probes for its entire time in office. No doubt the leaks have just begun.
The president might be wise to negotiate a resignation before he’s fatally wounded. Comey and Rogers slashed him so badly on Monday, with their emphatic eviscerations of his infamous tweets claiming President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, that his credibility on any issue, outside his adoring legions of cult-like fans, has been nearly destroyed. At some point, the Republicans may see their own salvation lies in deserting him for Vice President Mike Pence.
Comey and Rogers were clear. There is “no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI,” Comey said. And the G-man emphasized he was speaking with the authorization of the president’s own Justice Department, which had asked him “to share” its finding that “the department has no information that supports those tweets.”
The NSA’s Rogers, resplendent in his admiral’s uniform, bristled as he leaned into the microphone to destroy another empty assertion by the president, that Obama had asked British eavesdroppers to help intercept Trump’s communications.
“I’ve seen nothing on the NSA side that we engaged in any such activity, nor that anyone ever asked us to engage in such activity,” Rogers said. He seemed personally offended that the president had slandered America’s closest ally, which had denounced Trump’s tweets as “nonsense and utterly ridiculous.”
Yet Trump refused to bow, even in the face of Comey’s blunt-force blows to his presidency. From the Oval Office at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, he dispatched an increasingly desperate-sounding froth of denials into the Twittersphere along the lines of, “Who you going to believe—me or your lyin’ eyes?” That classic Chico Marx line (from the 1933 classic, Duck Soup) would have fit the bizarre day well.
As the hours ground on, one Republican after another complained that the investigations of U.S. intelligence agencies had left “a cloud over this administration,” as Representative Mike Turner of Ohio put it. Of course, that cloud was entirely of Team Trump’s making.
Back across town, Alexandra Chalupa was hoping investigators will keep drilling into the many and complex layers of Russian subversion on Trump’s behalf. The burgeoning scandal is so grave nobody has dared to hang a “-gate” on it. Watergate really was a third-rate burglary compared to what became apparent on Monday: Moscow’s hijacking of the 2016 election, with the possible collusion of its occupants.
“Important concerns were raised” in Monday’s hearing, Chalupa told Newsweek, carefully choosing her words. But she’d really like the FBI to catch the people who hacked her phone, twice broke into her car, tried to get into her house and continue to threaten her and her friends today.
Just like in Watergate, capturing the thugs could well unravel the plot.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-comey-rus ... ngs-571349
by Elvis » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:47 pm
How popular/unpopular is Donald Trump?
An updating calculation of the president's approval rating, accounting for each poll's quality, recency, sample size and partisan lean.
ar. 2, 2017 at 12:30 PM
How We’re Tracking Donald Trump’s Approval Ratings
By Nate Silver
Filed under Approval Ratings
President Trump’s first real test on the ballot will come 20 months from now, when Republicans face voters at the midterm elections. But those Republicans have decisions to make today about whether to support Trump’s latest policy proposal or criticize his latest tweet. And their fate will be tied to his: Historically, the president’s approval ratings have been one of the best indicators of how his party will fare in congressional elections.
Therefore, we’ve launched an interactive to track Trump’s job approval and disapproval ratings. Although the topline results are fairly similar to other approval-rating averages such as the ones from Real Clear Politics and Huffington Post Pollster — we currently have Trump’s approval rating at 44 percent and his disapproval rating at 50 percent — our version has a few extra features that add a bit of rigor and make it uniquely FiveThirtyEight-ish:
As with our election forecasts, we use almost all polls but weight them based on their methodological standards and historical accuracy.
We adjust polls for house effects if they consistently show different results from the polling consensus.
And we account for uncertainty, estimating the fairly wide range within which Trump’s approval ratings could vary over the next 100 days. (This is what’s indicated by the green and orange bands on the chart.)
Here’s a more detailed — and at times, technical — rundown of how we crunch the numbers.
Finding and weighting polls
Our philosophy is to use all the polls we can find — provided that we think they’re real, scientific surveys.1 However, we use a formula that weights polls according to our pollster ratings, which are based on pollsters’ historical accuracy in forecasting elections since 19982 and a pair of easily measurable methodological tests:
Whether the pollster participates in professional initiatives that seek to increase disclosure and enforce industry best practices — the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s transparency initiative, for example.
Whether the pollster usually conducts live-caller surveys that call cellphones as well as landlines.
Polls are also weighted based on their sample size, although there are diminishing returns to bigger samples. Surveying 2,000 voters substantially reduces error compared with surveying 400 of them, but surveying 10,000 voters will produce only marginal improvements in accuracy compared with the 2,000-person survey.3 The worse the pollster’s rating, the quicker it encounters diminishing returns in our formula; a Zogby Interactive survey still wouldn’t get much weight in our model, for example, even if it polled 100,000 people.
The weights also account for how often a pollster measures Trump’s approval ratings. If it does so more often than about once per 20 days, each instance of the poll is discounted so that the pollster doesn’t dominate the average just because it’s so prolific. Daily tracking polls also receive special handling from the formula so that interviews are not double-counted.
“Adults” versus “voters”
Comparisons between different approval-ratings polls aren’t always apples to apples. Some polls are surveying adults regardless of their voting status; others are polling registered voters, and a few are even polling “likely voters.”4 So far, Trump’s approval ratings are higher among the voter population than among the adult population.
Our default version of the approval ratings reflects a combination of all polls, whether they’re of adults, registered voters or likely voters. If a pollster releases multiple versions of the same survey, however, we use the all-adult version of the poll before the registered-voter version (and the registered-voter version before the likely-voter version). Approval ratings have traditionally been taken among all adults, so this provides for better continuity between Trump’s ratings and those of past presidents.
However, we have another version of the approval ratings that includes only registered or likely voter polls5 and discards all-adult polls; this may be the most useful version for forecasting Trump’s impact on the 2018 midterm elections. (We also have a version that uses only the all-adult polls and discards any polls that restrict the sample to registered or likely voters, which might be useful for historical comparisons.)
Calculating a trend line (local polynomial regression)
Because individual polls can be noisy, we estimate how Trump’s approval rating has changed over time using local polynomial regression. Basically, this consists of drawing a smooth curve over the data; this method is similar to those used on Huffington Post Pollster and other sites. In the regression, polls are weighted on the basis that I described earlier, so higher-quality polls with larger sample sizes have more say in the estimate.
While local polynomial regression is a flexible and fairly intuitive method, it’s a bit trickier to work with than it might seem. That’s because people don’t always take the time to determine the correct degree of smoothing, which is governed by several parameters, including the bandwidth and the degree of the polynomial. Too little smoothing can make the curve jut up and down unnecessarily and will result in overfitting of the data. If you smooth too much, however, the curve may be aesthetically pleasing but won’t do all that good a job of describing the data and may be slow to catch up to new trends. While there are usually a wide range of “reasonable” settings when choosing trend-line parameters, our experience has been that people often over-smooth the data when applying these techniques.6
For our election forecasts, we choose the degree of smoothing based on what will maximize predictive power. Generally, this results in a fairly aggressive setting, especially in the days and weeks just before an election. This was one of the reasons our model came closer to the mark than most others in last year’s presidential election; it was aggressive about detecting the substantial tightening in the race that came after FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress in late October.
In the case of approval ratings, there’s no election to predict — so we instead choose the settings based on how well they would have predicted a president’s future approval ratings. It asks, for instance, what settings would best have predicted Bill Clinton’s approval ratings in March 1998 based on data through February 1998. The analysis is based on approval-ratings polls since 1945.
This also turns out to produce a relatively aggressive model. A week or two is usually enough to detect a meaningful change in approval ratings, and perhaps sooner than that if several high-quality polls tell a consistent story. See the footnotes for more detail about which settings we use.7
One more detail: When you see our estimates of Trump’s approval rating for a given date, they reflect only polls that were available as of that date. For instance, our estimate of Trump’s approval rating for March 15 will reflect only polls that have been released to the public by March 15. If on March 18, a new poll comes out that was conducted on March 15, we don’t go back and re-run the numbers for March 15.
Adjusting for house effects
Polls are adjusted for house effects, which are persistent differences between the poll and the trend line. Rasmussen Reports, for example, has consistently shown much better approval ratings for Trump than other pollsters have, while Gallup’s have been slightly worse. The house effects adjustment counteracts these tendencies. So, a recent Rasmussen Reports poll that showed Trump at 50 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval was adjusted by the model to 45 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval.8 Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll that had him at 43 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval was adjusted to 44 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. After adjusting for house effects, therefore, these polls — which had seemed to be in considerable disagreement with each other — are actually telling a fairly consistent story.
The house effects adjustment is more conservative when a pollster hasn’t released very much data. For instance, if a new firm called PDQ Polling releases a survey showing Trump at a 50 percent approval rating when the trend line has him at 44 percent, the model doesn’t assume that PDQ has a 6-point pro-Trump house effect, because its result could have reflected sampling error rather than methodological differences. Therefore, PDQ’s house effect is discounted: The model might adjust its numbers down by 1 or 2 percentage points, but not by a full 6 points. As a pollster releases more data, however, a larger fraction of its house effect is adjusted for. If, over many months, PDQ’s polls have consistently been 6 percentage points better for Trump than the consensus, the model will eventually deduct 5 or 6 points from Trump’s approval rating in a PDQ poll.
As a technical note, house effects and the trend line are calculated on an iterative basis. First the model calculates a trend line using the unadjusted version of the polls. Then it estimates house effects based on how polls compare to that trend line. Then it goes back and re-calculates the trend line, with polls adjusted for house effects. Then it recalculates the house effects adjustment using the recalculated trend line. It loops through this process several times. This helps the model determine whether an apparent shift in the data reflects a real change in Trump’s trajectory or is an artifact of house effects.
Estimating uncertainty
In our election forecasts, we estimate uncertainty by comparing how close past forecasts would have come to past election outcomes.9 If the polling average in a certain type of U.S. Senate race historically missed the outcome by an average of 4 percentage points a month before the election, for instance, that would be reflected in our forecast. Thus, our calculation of confidence intervals and probability estimates is empirical, rather than being based on idealized (and possibly overconfident) assumptions about how accurate polls “should” be.
For approval ratings, we don’t have that luxury. That is to say, there’s no national plebiscite in which all Americans go to the ballot and vote up or down on whether they approve of Trump’s job performance. Furthermore, our approval ratings estimate blends different types of populations together (adults, registered voters, likely voters), so it’s not clear what such a plebiscite would look like even in theory. Therefore, there’s not any good way to determine how Trump’s “true” approval rating compares to our estimates.
What we can do, however, is measure how well our approval rating estimate on a given date predicts future approval-ratings polls. These estimates are empirically driven, based on an analysis of approval-ratings data from 1945 through 2017 (for Presidents Truman through Obama).
The shaded area (as in the example below) reflects where we project 90 percent of new approval ratings polls to fall. As of March 2, for example, Trump’s approval rating is about 44 percent, but with a range of roughly plus or minus 5 percentage points. Thus, we’d expect Trump’s approval rating to be between 39 percent and 49 percent in about 90 percent of new polls, with the remaining 10 percent of polls falling outside this range. The width of the bands is determined by the volume of recent polling (more polls make it easier to home in on the average), the degree of disagreement in the polls and the amount of long-term volatility. So far, polls have disagreed more on Trump’s approval rating than they did for Obama, so his range is slightly wider than Obama’s would have been.
We’re projecting a range for Trump’s approval and disapproval ratings over the next 100 days. (Or for the 250 days if you look at the “four years” tab of our interactive.) As you can see, uncertainty increases as you advance further into the future. Also, presidential approval ratings tend to be more volatile early in a president’s term, so you should keep a wide range of possibilities in mind for how Trump’s presidency might progress.
In the long run, presidential approval ratings tend to be somewhat mean-reverting: Good ratings tend to get worse, and bad ones tend to get better. They also tend to worsen, slightly, over the course of a president’s tenure in office. It would be easy to overstate these effects, which are relatively minor over the near-to-medium term. Nonetheless, you’d expect a president’s approval rating to decline more often than not when it’s above 50 percent and to rise more often than not when it’s below 40 percent.10
The dashed line in the chart indicates Trump’s projected approval rating over the next 100 days, accounting for this mean reversion. Because Trump’s approval rating is within the 40 percent to 50 percent range now, we wouldn’t expect much effect from mean reversion. That is to say, on the basis of how presidential approval ratings have behaved historically — not considering any circumstances particular to Trump — ratings like the ones Trump has now are about equally likely to rise and to fall. It’s true that most presidents begin with higher approval ratings (and much lower disapproval ratings) than the ones Trump now has and then see them deteriorate. But because Trump’s numbers are already middling, he may avoid the slump that past presidents experienced when they exited their “honeymoon period.”
Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... l-ratings/
by 82_28 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:20 pm
Rory » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:45 pm wrote:Trump won't win the primary
Trump can't beat $hillary
Trump will be impeached
The Dems will retake the House and Senate in 2018
Trump will lose in 2020
There'll be a revolution to usurp Emperor Trump
Some one will save us from this national level Katrina/New Orleans hellhole
*muffled sounds of people trying to speak underwater*
by 82_28 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:35 pm
by Rory » Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:54 am
82_28 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:20 pm wrote:
Let the record state, that I in fact, predicted all of this before it began. Nothing to be proud of, but even before Michael Moore said his piece, I said "he was not going to go away". It is in my OP of TRUMP is seriously dangerous. I now predict that he won't last but a few more months. Let us hope that I am right about that now too. He needs to be removed.
by 8bitagent » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:21 am
Rory » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:45 pm wrote:Trump won't win the primary
Trump can't beat $hillary
Trump will be impeached
The Dems will retake the House and Senate in 2018
Trump will lose in 2020
There'll be a revolution to usurp Emperor Trump
Some one will save us from this national level Katrina/New Orleans hellhole
*muffled sounds of people trying to speak underwater*
by 8bitagent » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:42 am
by 8bitagent » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:47 am
82_28 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:20 pm wrote:Rory » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:45 pm wrote:Trump won't win the primary
Trump can't beat $hillary
Trump will be impeached
The Dems will retake the House and Senate in 2018
Trump will lose in 2020
There'll be a revolution to usurp Emperor Trump
Some one will save us from this national level Katrina/New Orleans hellhole
*muffled sounds of people trying to speak underwater*
Let the record state, that I in fact, predicted all of this before it began. Nothing to be proud of, but even before Michael Moore said his piece, I said "he was not going to go away". It is in my OP of TRUMP is seriously dangerous. I now predict that he won't last but a few more months. Let us hope that I am right about that now too. He needs to be removed.
by 82_28 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:08 am
by SonicG » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:35 am
Just like the frothing at the mouth 2008-2015 era idiot tea party rubes thought "for sure" Obama would be taken down by birtherism or Benghazi or every little weekly non scandal...
n an interview with the New York Times, a former intelligence official who pushed a 2008 rumor that former First Lady Michelle Obama made racially-inflammatory comments about white people in a taped-speech admitted he is one of the sources for President Donald Trump’s claim he was “wiretapped.”
With GOP lawmakers and U.S. intelligence officials failing to back up Trump’s Twitter accusations that former President Barack Obama had his Trump Tower office “wiretapped” before the election, the president on Friday passed the buck. Speaking with reporters during a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump indicated he got his wiretapping information by watching Fox News personality and former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, Andrew Napolitano.
Napolitano is no stranger to conspiracy theories, previously questioning the attack on the World Trade Center, and being labeled a “9/11 truther.”
In an effort to establish where the judge came up with his assertion of wiretapping that led the president to go on a tweetstorm and accuse Obama of being “sick,” the Times attempted to get a comment from Napolitano who ducked their calls.
However, according to the Times, they were able to contact one of the judges sources: former CIA official Larry Johnson.
Speaking with the Times, Johnson admitted passing along the wiretapping info, which he claims he received from sources within the intelligence community to a friend, who in turn passed it along to the judge.
Johnson added, “It sounds like a Frederick Forsyth novel.”
In 2003, Johnson was known as one of former CIA officer Valerie Plame’s biggest defenders after the George W. Bush administration outed her following comments made by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson. Former ambassador Wilson was harshly was critical of Bush administration and debunked claims that Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium before the US invasion of Iraq.
According to the Times, Johnson was later behind a rumor that Michelle Obama had made disparaging remarks about white people — calling them “whitey” — that had been recorded and would be released in time to derail the candidacy of then-Senator Barack Obama.
The existence of the “whitey tape” still remains a mystery eight years later and months after the Obamas left the White House after Trump’s election.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/source ... pe-rumors/
by stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:57 pm
8bitagent » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:47 am wrote:82_28 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:20 pm wrote:Rory » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:45 pm wrote:Trump won't win the primary
Trump can't beat $hillary
Trump will be impeached
The Dems will retake the House and Senate in 2018
Trump will lose in 2020
There'll be a revolution to usurp Emperor Trump
Some one will save us from this national level Katrina/New Orleans hellhole
*muffled sounds of people trying to speak underwater*
Let the record state, that I in fact, predicted all of this before it began. Nothing to be proud of, but even before Michael Moore said his piece, I said "he was not going to go away". It is in my OP of TRUMP is seriously dangerous. I now predict that he won't last but a few more months. Let us hope that I am right about that now too. He needs to be removed.
I predicted six years ago Trump was the next GOP chosen one and Obama would kill Osama http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 37#p394237
Who wants to bet that if this "Trump will be Impeached cuz of Russia" fantasy happens, at the last moment some crazy game changing event happens...and a week later noone even remembers the impeachment stuff?
It'd be like Rumsfeld's missing Pentagon trillions all over again
by JackRiddler » Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:49 pm
by Elvis » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:50 pm
stillrobertpaulsen wrote:Even conspiracy deniers like Noam Chomsky are raising the prospect of a "false flag" terror attack to consolidate Trump's power.
“I think that we shouldn’t put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly,” Chomsky said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/noam-ch ... instantly/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
