1st 100 days: Trump’s approval at record lows

[nac386]

"behave accordingly"

Portraying someone to be flustered isn't actually a big deal though. You guys just made it into one because you're obsessed with every little thing he does.

Uh, yeah. When you say he's mocking a disabled reporters disability, it's important to actually conduct research and make sure he isn't doing it, which he wasn't. What the fuck are you actually talking about?

No, I'm stating a fact. You're an extremely dishonest person. Trying to make it seem like a Muslim punching a girl deaf over a ham pizza was just a random fistfight, the equivalent to two hobos fighting over a spot on the street as if there wasn't a huge ideology behind it was sickening. You legitimately need to seek help.

I don't care really what neocons think.

The people who disapprove of him are overwhelmingly liberal, so I choose to focus on them. Not the most complicated thing in the world.

Remember that time you said it's Trumps fault that a certain group of irrational people "constantly" misinterpret what he says and does?

Are you still talking about that article that quoted Facebook posts from the victim's mom as evidence of what happened?

 

[KONE]

Are you still talking about that article that quoted Facebook posts as evidence of what happened?

About the Muslim punching a woman over her having ham on her pizza?

When you thought it was true, you were treating it as an ordinary fight. Literally your first or second post were links to other fights that happened that day. You were assuming it was true and made it seem like not a big deal. Insanity.

 

[kenetics]

I'm not making excuses, it's just that there has been a witch hunt out on him since day one. Besides dropping the ball on race relations I don't think Obama did a bad job. I even voted for him twice. Obamacare kind of sucks, but that didn't effect me, so personally speaking Obama did alright.

The Democratic party just got too far out for me, so I voted for Trump this time around as I think he will provide a balance that this country could use.

Trump and balancing the country is laughable. He couldn't even balance his fake university which he is getting sued atm lol

 

[nac386]

About the Muslim punching a woman over her having ham on her pizza?

When you thought it was true, you were treating it as an ordinary fight. Literally your first or second post were links to other fights that happened that day. You were assuming it was true and made it seem like not a big deal. Insanity.

Someone posted a tabloid article from Denmark about a fight at a pizza parlor. The victim's mother posted on Facebook that it was a Muslim who was mad about ham on a pizza. The author of the article quoted her Facebook post as evidence in the article. There were no details about what happened in the altercation. There was no real explanation of what actually occurred.

There are lots of stories about radical Islam that are important to discuss. Issues of immigration, online radicalization, and religious rights all seem especially important to discuss right now.

But there are also obviously an awful lot of cherry picked stories from obscure publications that seem to only be shared so that people can rant about Muslims for a few pages. It is convenient because if the story turns out to be fake, nobody will ever know. It will simply disappear. I do not like that approach, I think it is dishonest to cherry pick like that.

Feel free to disagree. Maybe you think Danish tabloids that quote Facebook are very important to talk about. But my approach seems more rational to me.

 

[KONE]

Someone posted a tabloid article from Denmark about a fight at a pizza parlor. The victim's mother posted on Facebook that it was a Muslim who was mad about ham on a pizza. The author of the article quoted her Facebook post as evidence in the article. There were no details about what happened in the altercation. There was no real explanation of what actually occurred.

There are lots of stories about radical Islam that are important to discuss. Issues of immigration, online radicalization, and religious rights all seem especially important to discuss right now.

But there are also obviously an awful lot of cherry picked stories from obscure publications that seem to only be shared so that people can rant about Muslims for a few pages. It is convenient because if the story turns out to be fake, nobody will ever know. It will simply disappear. I do not like that approach, I think it is dishonest to cherry pick like that.

Feel free to disagree. Maybe you think Danish tabloids that quote Facebook are very important to talk about.

I didn't necessarily think it was important to talk about. I barely posted in that thread (if at all.) I just found your dishonesty pretty vile. You were assuming it to be true in the first few posts, and posted stories you thought were similar that clearly weren't.

From that to you victim blaming when people accuse someone of being a racist with ZERO evidence of it, because you think he's "childish" (as if that's somehow related) it's pretty safe to call you dishonest.

 

[nac386]

I didn't necessarily think it was important to talk about. I barely posted in that thread (if at all.) I just found your dishonesty pretty vile. You were assuming it to be true in the first few posts, and posted stories you thought were similar that clearly weren't.

From that to you victim blaming when people accuse someone of being a racist with ZERO evidence of it, because you think he's "childish" (as if that's somehow related) it's pretty safe to call you dishonest.

Edit: misread. Response coming in a minute.

 

[KONE]

I never assumed it to be true. I'm not sure why you think that. I'm not sure what part was dishonest either.

Why did you post stories you thought were similar then?

Just be straightforward, holy shit. You thought it wasn't a big deal and a Muslim possibly punching someone deaf over ham was an ordinary every-day thing to you. Just say it.

Victim blaming?

I am lost here. What are you trying to say?

The original post this stemmed from was because of someone saying Trump will always have people that dislike him because he's supposedly a racist and misogynist. When people accuse him of those things with NO EVIDENCE, and you say it's his fault because he says things in "childish" ways - which is completely fucking unrelated by the way - it's victim blaming.

Not being able to articulate what you mean better doesn't mean you're racist or sexist or "Islamophobic." I have no idea why you keep bringing that up as if it's remotely relevant. Geert Wilders can break down Islam 10 times better than Trump and he's still called a "bigot" and "extremist." They shouldn't try to appease you because people like you are a lost cause and will nitpick at anything you can get your hands on.

 

[nac386]

Why did you post stories you thought were similar then?

To show that the thread starter was cherry picking Muslim articles. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I incorrectly assumed that other people were going to be skeptical of the source of the article. Then I realize people were actually reading it they were just commenting on how crazy Muslims are.

I have been more careful since then, I don't assume anything.

The original post this stemmed from was because of someone saying Trump will always have people that dislike him because he's supposedly a racist and misogynist. When people accuse him of those things with NO EVIDENCE, and you say it's his fault because he says things in "childish" ways - which is completely fucking unrelated by the way - it's victim blaming.

Not being able to articulate what you mean better doesn't mean you're racist or sexist or "Islamophobic." I have no idea why you keep bringing that up as if it's remotely relevant. Geert Wilders can break down Islam 10 times better than Trump and he's still called a "bigot" and "extremist." They shouldn't try to appease you because people like you are a lost cause and will nitpick at anything you can get your hands on.

So you are saying that Donald Trump is a victim, and I am victim blaming him?

I don't know Donald Trump and I don't know if he's racist. But Donald Trump has provided a lot of reasons for people to suspect that he is prejudice. Here is just one, and really try to imagine how it would make you feel if a presidential candidate was lying like this about your race.

* Fabricating crime statistics to make black people seem more violent towards whites. Going so far as to retweet a meme full of fake statistics used by neo-Nazis, with a picture of a black man wearing a mask holding a gun sideways. Exaggerating black on white crime by 500%.

This is straight up, old-school racist propaganda. It is not cleverly done, or subtle. It is just full-blown ridiculous racist propaganda.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/


Can you honestly tell me that nobody has any reason to suspect that a man like that might be racist? And that he is just a victim, and by holding him accountable for something like that is victim blaming?

I'm sorry, I don't see it your way at all.

 

[KONE]

To show that the thread starter was cherry picking Muslim articles. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I incorrectly assumed that other people were going to be skeptical of the source of the article. Then I realize people were actually reading it they were just commenting on how crazy Muslims are.

I have been more careful since then, I don't assume anything.

So you genuinely don't understand the difference between a Muslim doing something violent, backed by an ideology and two homeless dudes fighting over a spot on the street. Noted for future reference.

So you are saying that Donald Trump is a victim, and I am victim blaming him?

I don't know Donald Trump and I don't know if he's racist. But Donald Trump has provided a lot of reasons for people to suspect that he is prejudice.

But that's the thing. They don't suspect he's prejudice. You're being dishonest again. They flat out call him racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, and xenophobic NON STOP.

Here is just one, and really try to imagine how it would make you feel if a presidential candidate was lying like this about your race.

* Fabricating crime statistics to make black people seem more filing towards whites. Going so far as to retweet a meme full of fake statistics used by neo-Nazis, with a picture of a black man wearing a mask holding a gun sideways. Exaggerating black on white crime by 500%.

This is straight up, old-school racist propaganda. It is not cleverly done, or subtle. It is just full-blown ridiculous racist propaganda.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/


Can you honestly tell me that nobody has any reason to suspect that a man like that might be racist? And that he is just a victim, and by holding him accountable for something like that is victim blaming?

I'm sorry, I don't see it your way at all.

Posting an incorrect stat doesn't make you racist. The message he's trying to convey is right though - black people commit disproportionate amounts of crime and black communities need help. That's a fact. He was called racist long before that picture was ever posted, so that's not even a proper rebuttal anyway.

So to sum up - called racist for pointing out the problems in black neighborhoods, called Islamophobic for correctly stating Islam has a problem, called misogynist for being rude to women even though he makes fun of men too, accused of mocking a disabled reporter when that has no basis in reality, and accused of calling all Mexicans rapists when that's clearly not what he said.

Must be his fault that everyone misinterpreted all of that incorrectly, huh? Who's fault was it when people thought he said "They're rapists" when he clearly said "their rapists"? His right?

 

[NC252]

To be fair, you should stop making excuses for him that previous Presidents did not get. If he is a quality President, he should not need your excuses.

The truth is an excuse. Up Is Down. The sky is whatever color Obama wants it to be, Trump is losing the support of his base. You lefties will believe anything.

 

[hillelslovak87]

But the poll results don't say that at all you utter fucking retard.

Yes, the lowest approval rating in the first 100 days out of any President in the modern era.

 

[nac386]

Posting an incorrect stat doesn't make you racist. The message he's trying to convey is right though - black people commit disproportionate amounts of crime and black communities need help.

Actually, re-tweeting racist propaganda from neo-Nazis is a very reasonable way to make people think you're racist. It wasn't just an "incorrect" stat, it was entirely fabricated for the sole purpose of propaganda.

If you think that sending out racist propaganda is simply "getting a stat wrong" then we won't see eye to eye on that.

Must be his fault that everyone misinterpreted all of that incorrectly, huh? Who's fault was it when people thought he said "They're rapists" when he clearly said "their rapists"? His right?

Whoa, are you talking about the incident when he said some of the illegal immigrants crossing the border are rapists? I didn't really care about that, but you actually are saying he meant "their rapists" instead of "they're rapists"?

I've never heard that. That's amazing that you'd even say that.

So it wasn't:

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

It was:

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”


I'm amazed that you'd take it there. That is a bold defense of something that really didn't need a bold defense.

 

[My Spot]

So to sum up - called racist for pointing out the problems in black neighborhoods, called Islamophobic for correctly stating Islam has a problem, called misogynist for being rude to women even though he makes fun of men too, accused of mocking a disabled reporter when that has no basis in reality, and accused of calling all Mexicans rapists when that's clearly not what he said.
Must be his fault that everyone misinterpreted all of that incorrectly, huh? Who's fault was it when people thought he said "They're rapists" when he clearly said "their rapists"? His right?

You're talking to someone who thinks it's "racist" to bring up personal responsibility.

 

[GhostZ06]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d616bd5a305_story.html?utm_term=.d659671aa7da

As President Trump nears his 100th day in office, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a historically low 42 percent of Americans approve of his job performance thus far. His efforts to keep jobs in the U.S. is one area of bipartisan support among heavy criticism of his judgment, honesty and accomplishments.

 

[KONE]

Actually, re-tweeting racist propaganda from neo-Nazis is a very reasonable way to make people think you're racist. It wasn't just an "incorrect" stat, it was entirely fabricated for the sole purpose of propaganda.

If you think that sending out racist propaganda is simply "getting a stat wrong" then we won't see eye to eye on that.

I like how you keep bringing up the fact that the picture was apparently made by neo-nazis, as if he knew. He thought it was a correct stat, it wasn't, and he made a mistake by retweeting it. That doesn't make you racist. Once again, he was called racist long before that ever happened.

Whoa, are you talking about the incident when he said some of the illegal immigrants crossing the border are rapists? I didn't really care about that, but you actually are saying he meant "their rapists" instead of "they're rapists"?

I've never heard that. That's amazing that you'd even say that.

So it wasn't:

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

It was:

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”


I'm amazed that you'd take it there. That is a bold defense of something that really didn't need a bold defense.

Uh, okay. The point being that people perpetuated a lie that he said all Mexicans are rapists, when that's not what he said. Who's fault was it that that statement was interpreted incorrectly?

You're talking to someone who thinks it's "racist" to bring up personal responsibility.

lol wait what? Details plz

 

[nac386]

I like how you keep bringing up the fact that the picture was apparently made by neo-nazis, as if he knew. He thought it was a correct stat, it wasn't, and he made a mistake by retweeting it. That doesn't make you racist. Once again, he was called racist long before that ever happened.

So he was either intentionally tweeting racist propaganda, or he was completely oblivious. Those are not good options. Is he racist or dumb? Is it hard to spot racist propaganda? I mean, it had ludicrous stats and a picture of a black man in a mask with a sideways gun....is that hard to identify as potentially NOT from a real government bureau? Lol.

People have suspected that he is prejudiced for a long time, that's true. Maybe accusing the President of being from Kenya for 8 years played into that. Or housing discrimination lawsuits that have been filed against him. Or when he said that "Mexican judge" who was actually American was incapable of handling his case. For what reason? Why would an American judge with Mexican heritage be incapable of handing a Trump case? Explain that one.

Like I said, he's given people plenty of reasons to think that he is prejudiced. There's no real way to claim that people have no reason to suspect it. You don't have to think he's prejudiced, you can have your own opinion.

But you maintain this stance that everybody is just being mean to Trump, and Trump is a huge victim who has never done anything to make people think he's prejudiced. That is silly.

Uh, okay. The point being that people perpetuated a lie that he said all Mexicans are rapists, when that's not what he said. Who's fault was it that that statement was interpreted incorrectly?

Of course he did not say all Mexicans are racist.

But do you really believe he said, "Their rapists," and not "they're rapists"?

That is a very Clintonian defense. So absurd that people would be genuinely stunned to hear it. Maybe you should run for politics.

 

[KONE]

So he was either intentionally tweeting racist propaganda, or he was completely oblivious. Those are not good options.

He wasn't intentionally tweeting racist propaganda though. You keep repeating it as if it's a possibility. Do you actually think he knew neo-Nazis made that picture? Of course not.

People have suspected that he is prejudiced for a long time, that's true. Maybe accusing the President of being from Kenya for 8 years played into that. Or housing discrimination lawsuits that have been filed against him.

You mean the lawsuits that were settled without admission of guilt?

Like I said, he's given people plenty of reasons to think that he is prejudiced. There's no real way to claim that people have no reason to suspect it.

Well, you're being dishonest again. They're not "suspecting it" they're flat out calling him a racist, as I already stated before.

Of course he did not say all Mexicans are racist

Right. So we have a large group of people that think he called Mexicans rapists, and hates Mexicans. No matter what he does, the people who incorrectly interpreted what he said will never like him. And that's not his fault, as you keep trying to say it is.

But do you really believe he said, "Their rapists," and not "they're rapists"?

That is a very Clintonian defense. So absurd that people would be genuinely stunned to hear it. Maybe you should run for politics.

What an utterly bizarre thing to fixate on. He essentially said "they're bringing their rapists." The point ONCE AGAIN being that it was interpreted incorrectly, and you think it's his fault. Just like you think it's his fault when people call him a racist/misogynist/xenophobe/etc based on nothing. Because he doesn't articulate it clearly as if that's related at all.

At least you seem to have conceded the whole Muslim punching a woman deaf over a ham pizza thing. That wasn't a good look for you.

 

[KONE]

Or when he said that "Mexican judge" who was actually American was incapable of handling his case. For what reason? Why would an American judge with Mexican heritage be incapable of handing a Trump case? Explain that one.

Easily, considering this a long debunked left wing talking point. He doesn't think he can't do his job because of his Mexican heritage. He thought it was a conflict of interest because he wanted to build a wall, and was also concerned with the judges political ties.

Like I said, he's given people plenty of reasons to think that he is prejudiced.

Not really.

But you maintain this stance that everybody is just being mean to Trump, and Trump is a huge victim who has never done anything to make people think he's prejudiced. That is silly.

You are still making things up. My stance is not that "everybody is just being mean to Trump." For what, the 4th or 5th time? I denounced when he bombed Syria, denounced how he handled the inauguration crowd thing, denounced the fact that he keeps tweeting about Arnold's ratings, and denounced the possibility of him punishing flag burners when he tweeted about it. I don't have a problem with people criticizing him over things he actually does wrong. Making shit up out of thin air (like you keep constantly doing) isn't something I'm going to criticize him over. The original point being that people will always dislike him no matter what he does because it's been burned into their mind that he's a """"""""""""""""""""bigot"""""""""""""""""""""

 

[nac386]

Easily, considering this a long debunked left wing talking point. He doesn't think he can't do his job because of his Mexican heritage. He thought it was a conflict of interest because he wanted to build a wall, and was also concerned with the judges political ties.

Why would there be a conflict of interest? Explain the conflict.

 

[KONE]

Why would there be a conflict of interest? Explain the conflict.

Him being against the wall and having certain political ties, which I literally just said.

 

[nac386]

Him being against the wall and having certain political ties, which I literally just said.

Do you have evidence that the judge has spoken out publicly against the wall?

If so, do you understand that all judges put aside their own beliefs in order to uphold the law in an impartial manner? It is the entire point of having a judge in the first place.

You cannot single out an American judge, and say he is incapable of being impartial because of his heritage. That is indefensible.