Quote:(Today 06:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:
That's not how it works UofM but why am I not surprised you would come up with that.

Maybe you and Max can get together and remind us all how polling works again. I know he says you have to factor in MUH FIELD OFFICES and other fake data points in order to make a poll legit. Also, I believe if you manipulate your calling patterns heavy enough, you can actually show that Hillary will win Georgia and Texas.

Who are you talking to meathead?

(04-11-2017 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 11:41 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 09:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Andrew Kaczynski: New ABC poll shows how conservatives view everything by Team. Democrats: 37% support Trump's Syria strikes, 38% supported Obama doing it in 2013. GOP: 86% supported Trump doing it, but only 22% supported Obama doing it in 13.


Pathetic..................

Obama didn't ask for strikes. He wanted ground troops and regime change. If/when Trump starts going in that direction, I'll oppose him as well, but you are comparing apples and oranges.

Not necessarily true. The resolution presented to Congress was only related to the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/...iddleeast&

He didn't need a resolution for airstrikes. He wanted a blanket use of force like Bush had for Iraq.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(04-11-2017 04:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:08 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I took it from another board that is rock freaking solid. I didn't have to fact check the tweet because I know if this guy wrote it down you can take it to the bank. After all the shyt that is thrown around here not sourced I didn't think it would be a problem. I know it's right.

I found and posted the Poll. It really doesn't matter some cons here will spin it whether you have a link or not.

You didn't even get the point. The criticism is the comparison to that 2013 poll and what questions it asked which you didn't link.

This is the 2013 poll taking in Sept 2013. Its a Post-ABC poll taking after Syria used chemical weapons in the civil war there. Poll shows that 24% of Republicans support Pres. Obama and 41% of Democrat supported him as well. Not as low as the 22% that was in the OP but still very low in comparison to the 86% of Republicans that support Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010...rJYgXKy0Wg

(04-11-2017 06:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:(Today 06:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:
That's not how it works UofM but why am I not surprised you would come up with that.

Maybe you and Max can get together and remind us all how polling works again. I know he says you have to factor in MUH FIELD OFFICES and other fake data points in order to make a poll legit. Also, I believe if you manipulate your calling patterns heavy enough, you can actually show that Hillary will win Georgia and Texas.

Who are you talking to meathead?

LANGUAGE!

(04-11-2017 04:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:08 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I took it from another board that is rock freaking solid. I didn't have to fact check the tweet because I know if this guy wrote it down you can take it to the bank. After all the shyt that is thrown around here not sourced I didn't think it would be a problem. I know it's right.

I found and posted the Poll. It really doesn't matter some cons here will spin it whether you have a link or not.

Do you need some ointment?

Thank you for that brilliant and intellectual comment. You are truly a valuable asset to the forum.

(04-11-2017 08:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:08 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I took it from another board that is rock freaking solid. I didn't have to fact check the tweet because I know if this guy wrote it down you can take it to the bank. After all the shyt that is thrown around here not sourced I didn't think it would be a problem. I know it's right.

I found and posted the Poll. It really doesn't matter some cons here will spin it whether you have a link or not.

You didn't even get the point. The criticism is the comparison to that 2013 poll and what questions it asked which you didn't link.

This is the 2013 poll taking in Sept 2013. Its a Post-ABC poll taking after Syria used chemical weapons in the civil war there. Poll shows that 24% of Republicans support Pres. Obama and 41% of Democrat supported him as well. Not as low as the 22% that was in the OP but still very low in comparison to the 86% of Republicans that support Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010...rJYgXKy0Wg

By that time in 2013, everyone had a good idea that he and Hillary screwed the pooch in Benghazi, had the Libya debacle, and had seen the stable areas of Iraq and Afghanistan fall to into the hands of ISIS. So pretty much everyone knew he was a walking cluster**** when it came to foreign policy. Noone had the stomach for him to set the world on fire more than he already had.

(04-11-2017 08:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 08:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:08 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I took it from another board that is rock freaking solid. I didn't have to fact check the tweet because I know if this guy wrote it down you can take it to the bank. After all the shyt that is thrown around here not sourced I didn't think it would be a problem. I know it's right.

I found and posted the Poll. It really doesn't matter some cons here will spin it whether you have a link or not.

You didn't even get the point. The criticism is the comparison to that 2013 poll and what questions it asked which you didn't link.

This is the 2013 poll taking in Sept 2013. Its a Post-ABC poll taking after Syria used chemical weapons in the civil war there. Poll shows that 24% of Republicans support Pres. Obama and 41% of Democrat supported him as well. Not as low as the 22% that was in the OP but still very low in comparison to the 86% of Republicans that support Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010...rJYgXKy0Wg

By that time in 2013, everyone had a good idea that he and Hillary screwed the pooch in Benghazi, had the Libya debacle, and had seen the stable areas of Iraq and Afghanistan fall to into the hands of ISIS. So pretty much everyone knew he was a walking cluster**** when it came to foreign policy. Noone had the stomach for him to set the world on fire more than he already had.

So by that same logic does Trump deserve 86% support with only about 4 months of foreign policy experience? I'm asking because I'm curious as to how it can be justified.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

(04-11-2017 08:57 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 08:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 08:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:08 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  I found and posted the Poll. It really doesn't matter some cons here will spin it whether you have a link or not.

You didn't even get the point. The criticism is the comparison to that 2013 poll and what questions it asked which you didn't link.

This is the 2013 poll taking in Sept 2013. Its a Post-ABC poll taking after Syria used chemical weapons in the civil war there. Poll shows that 24% of Republicans support Pres. Obama and 41% of Democrat supported him as well. Not as low as the 22% that was in the OP but still very low in comparison to the 86% of Republicans that support Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010...rJYgXKy0Wg

By that time in 2013, everyone had a good idea that he and Hillary screwed the pooch in Benghazi, had the Libya debacle, and had seen the stable areas of Iraq and Afghanistan fall to into the hands of ISIS. So pretty much everyone knew he was a walking cluster**** when it came to foreign policy. Noone had the stomach for him to set the world on fire more than he already had.

So by that same logic does Trump deserve 86% support with only about 4 months of foreign policy experience? I'm asking because I'm curious as to how it can be justified.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Because so far he is doing what he said he was going to do, and hasnt f*cked up a giant section of the world. In short, after 3 months of Trump, Trump has proved himself to be capable and competant. After a few years of Obama, everyone knew he was getting outplayed, screwing things up, and blaming others. Thats why one got a wide range of bipartisan support, and the other got rebuffed in a bipartisn fashion.

(04-11-2017 11:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think you guys are brainwashed. You could have the exact same policy and if a D is after the name you won't support it. Put an R next to the name and it's 86% will. The vast majority don't think for themselves obviously. Wait til Rush and FoxNews tells you how to feel. Those stats prove it.

I would like to see the link "proving" that 86% of republicans don't think for themselves.

It would be an interesting read.

I'm sure it's true though.

I am convince 86% of the whole population can't think period.

(04-12-2017 12:12 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 11:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think you guys are brainwashed. You could have the exact same policy and if a D is after the name you won't support it. Put an R next to the name and it's 86% will. The vast majority don't think for themselves obviously. Wait til Rush and FoxNews tells you how to feel. Those stats prove it.

I would like to see the link "proving" that 86% of republicans don't think for themselves.

It would be an interesting read.

I'm sure it's true though.

I am convince 86% of the whole population can't think period.

The ironic thing is the same person who is a disciple of some mook on Twitter who calls himself Jester is talking about other people not thinking for themselves.

A disciple..........

Hyperbole

(04-11-2017 06:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:(Today 06:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:
That's not how it works UofM but why am I not surprised you would come up with that.

Maybe you and Max can get together and remind us all how polling works again. I know he says you have to factor in MUH FIELD OFFICES and other fake data points in order to make a poll legit. Also, I believe if you manipulate your calling patterns heavy enough, you can actually show that Hillary will win Georgia and Texas.

Who are you talking to meathead?

Your confused. Archie is supposed to call the liberal meathead!

(04-11-2017 08:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 08:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:08 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I took it from another board that is rock freaking solid. I didn't have to fact check the tweet because I know if this guy wrote it down you can take it to the bank. After all the shyt that is thrown around here not sourced I didn't think it would be a problem. I know it's right.

I found and posted the Poll. It really doesn't matter some cons here will spin it whether you have a link or not.

You didn't even get the point. The criticism is the comparison to that 2013 poll and what questions it asked which you didn't link.

This is the 2013 poll taking in Sept 2013. Its a Post-ABC poll taking after Syria used chemical weapons in the civil war there. Poll shows that 24% of Republicans support Pres. Obama and 41% of Democrat supported him as well. Not as low as the 22% that was in the OP but still very low in comparison to the 86% of Republicans that support Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010...rJYgXKy0Wg

By that time in 2013, everyone had a good idea that he and Hillary screwed the pooch in Benghazi, had the Libya debacle, and had seen the stable areas of Iraq and Afghanistan fall to into the hands of ISIS. So pretty much everyone knew he was a walking cluster**** when it came to foreign policy. Noone had the stomach for him to set the world on fire more than he already had.

I think it was mistrust of Obama, not party. Suspect it was more polling error to be 71% opposed (and 86% in favor). Still an interesting result. Give you credit for linking it.

(04-11-2017 06:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 11:41 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 09:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Andrew Kaczynski: New ABC poll shows how conservatives view everything by Team. Democrats: 37% support Trump's Syria strikes, 38% supported Obama doing it in 2013. GOP: 86% supported Trump doing it, but only 22% supported Obama doing it in 13.


Pathetic..................

Obama didn't ask for strikes. He wanted ground troops and regime change. If/when Trump starts going in that direction, I'll oppose him as well, but you are comparing apples and oranges.

Not necessarily true. The resolution presented to Congress was only related to the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/...iddleeast&

He didn't need a resolution for airstrikes. He wanted a blanket use of force like Bush had for Iraq.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

That's not set in stone. In most cases, unless there is an immediate threat to Americans or our country, you're supposed to get congressional approval first before bombing a country we're not at war with.

(04-11-2017 08:40 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:08 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I took it from another board that is rock freaking solid. I didn't have to fact check the tweet because I know if this guy wrote it down you can take it to the bank. After all the shyt that is thrown around here not sourced I didn't think it would be a problem. I know it's right.

I found and posted the Poll. It really doesn't matter some cons here will spin it whether you have a link or not.

Do you need some ointment?

Thank you for that brilliant and intellectual comment. You are truly a valuable asset to the forum.

Protip: Use the ignore function.

(04-11-2017 06:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  He didn't need a resolution for airstrikes. He wanted a blanket use of force like Bush had for Iraq.

Disagree Ever.. this is one of those times where I'm siding against Trump's decision.

Bush had a resolution for Iraq.. trump doesn't have that for Syria.