In nearly every public opinion poll Trump's support stems almost exclusively from the Republicans, and the number of Americans voters who identity as Republicans or leaning towards is shown to be lower than those who identify with the Democrats in the most recent polls that I cared to look at. If you can find a more current and legitimate poll I am all for it.

Forty-four percent of U.S. adults identify as Democrats or are independents who lean to the Democratic Party, while 37% are Republican identifiers or leaners. Democrats have maintained an edge of between five and nine percentage points on this measure of party affiliation throughout 2017, after holding a narrow advantage in late 2016.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/223124/democratic-party-maintains-edge-party-affiliation.aspx

This is USA history repeating itself, Raza. The sitting president always motivates opposition to his party. If you think the majority is going to ride in on a white horse to save Trump then you are fooling yourself, as at the very least, half of America thinks Trump is a shithead. You don't need polls to figure that out, it is just common sense.

The other half is split between those who deny that Trump is a shithead, and those who accept that Trump is a shithead and admire his shitheadedness.

The other half is split between those who deny that he is a shithead, and those who accept that he is a shithead and admire his shitheadedness. — Sapientia

Don't forget @Hanover. He knows that Trump's a shithead, probably doesn't admire his shitheadedness, but prefers shithead Republican policies to sensible Democratic ones.

Oh yes, of course. How could I momentarily forget? I was actually in the middle of editing my comment when you replied. You've put it better than I would've done anyway.

In nearly every public opinion poll Trump's support stems almost exclusively from the Republicans, — Jeremiah

If, or as, a resistance develops to a narrative because the narrative shows itself to be faulty under more intense scrutiny then it is easily conceivable that the previously undecided or growing doubtful previous democrat voters change to Republican.

So as a republican base grows as a consequence then the poll you submitted becomes somewhat mute in terms of anything to do with loyalty to party.

It could become just about a loyalty to who's message is most reasonable.

For example: A new poll in two years time shows larger proportion of Republicans thought "RussiaGate" was a scam. The same poll shows that the listed democrats at the time were 100% in their feelings Trump and Russia collude together at elections.

However, because of facts appearing showing great cracks in RussiaGate theory, democrat voter levels had slipped to 30%. This would only show the Democrat party backed the wrong horse with regard to world event narrative.

So all this could merely mean is that a party which dominates does so, not because of habitual loyalty, but because they become winners over a scam that became obvious as a scam.

Facebook — Michael

Perfect example. A platform very interested in censorship of conservative views.

And what if angels decent from the sky and crown Trump ruler for all time?

I don't care about your fantasies, Raza.

I don't care about your fantasies, Raza. — Jeremiah

I wasn't caring whether you cared.

You assume much. Mere sign of degree of narcissism.

Yes, the poor oppressed conservatives . . . . :roll:

You are not surprising. Your insights are relate perfectly with my lack of surprise.

All you do is assume, Raza. This entire thread is just you spitting out baseless assumptions and wild fantasies. Always in favor if Trump, but surely you can't think the man is perfect, right? There must be some flaws.

Somehow I will live with the loss. It will be hard, but I will push on.

Whether Russiagate turns out to amount to anything or not is unlikely to move overall numbers much. Dems have a demographic advantage, growing numbers of minority voters and a significant edge amongst upcoming generations, which is a much more salient clue to future voting intentions than the results of this probe.

The subject has been mostly this russia conspiracy theory.

Trump's flaws is that he is probably a fairly complete narcissist.

However. Where does his form of narcissism lead him? Maybe he wants to be known ultimately as America's hero President JUST for the image. And maybe to be that he has to reveal what has been wrong in America's governmental past.

I think one would be quite a narcissist to ever want to be president.

Maybe. Or a probe in a different direction could factor.

Trump's flaws is that he is probably a fairly complete narcissist. — raza

You think? Nah. Couldn't be,

Did Bengazhi harm Dems chances? That was huge. For the right anyway. But...

"According to The Hill, the hearings provided a positive momentum for Clinton's 2016 campaign, with her performance generating headlines such as "Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed" (CNN), and "GOP lands no solid punches while sparring with Clinton over Benghazi" (The Washington Post). Her campaign received a windfall of donations, mostly coming from new donors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Benghazi

You think? Nah. Couldn't be, — Banno

However, a flaw for who? It becomes relative.

Bengazhi may not be over. There are thousands of email exchanges yet to be public.

The subject has been mostly this russia conspiracy theory. — raza

You make it that way, Raza.

Trump's flaws is that he is probably a fairly complete narcissist. — raza

That is dodge.

Give a specific error he has made.

Give a specific error he has made — Jeremiah

Politically?

Can't even think of one?

Can't even think of one? — Jeremiah

Not a political error given he is still in the job with consideration to that fact so much is thrown at him.

Evidence Shows Hackers Changed Votes in the 2016 Election But No One Will Admit It

I'm torn. On the one hand, the author keeps referring to the Russians as Soviets and has filed it under "What a Fool Believes", which questions the entire thing (also, it contradicts the FBI, SIC, etc.). On the other hand, he points specifically to Georgia as being likely to have had its votes changed and then this being covered up, and I'd love to be able to shove it in Hanover's face that Trump's win here was illegitimate (although alas it's only 16 electoral votes and so not enough to swing the election).

So, you can't think of a single political error, because you define "political error" in such a way as to rule out what would normally be considered as political errors? All that's required is that he remain in his position in spite of the backlash - the arguably justified backlash - against his actions? Isn't that sophism?

The failed Muslim ban? The steel and aluminium tariffs? Moving the US embassy? Appearing weak and manipulated by Putin? These are not political errors? I would love to hear your apologetics on how these are in fact heroic acts worthy of the greatest admiration.

On its own the source looks too left-wing biased to be trusted. Worth some research though.

Freedom of speech. (If you ask the right questions).

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/26/cnn-reporter-banned-trump-white-house-event-kaitlan-collins

On its own the source looks too left-wing biased to be trusted. Worth some research though. — Baden

Yes, but high factual reporting.

This one reads more as an opinion piece though.

Well, if it's true there should be corroborating evidence out there. Worth a look for sure.

Well, if it's true there should be corroborating evidence out there. Worth a look for sure. — Baden

That's a problem that the article addresses:

Aside from circumstantial evidence, it is impossible to know if ballots cast by Georgia voters were changed because the state does not require a post-election audit. Even if it did, an audit might not be possible because the state does not require voting machines to have paper ballots.

But we know Georgia uses some of the most hackable voting machines and runs its election on a system that was breached. In February, when the Center for American Progress graded each state on election security, Georgia earned a D.

The only logical explanation that could possibly explain why Russians did not change votes in Georgia is to somehow believe an international cabal of hackers got into the system, found instructions, voter registrations and passwords to voting machines and yet somehow decided not to do it, just because.

Marks says Georgia’s systems would have been an “ideal” target for Russian hackers because the state doesn’t use a system with a paper trail so there is no way to audit the system. Of course, a diligent eye could have inspected Georgia’s system or compared the saved backups with the hacked server.

But when Marks’ organization sued for data to see whether or not the state’s elections systems had been penetrated, Kennesaw State University, the college that houses the Center for Election Systems, wiped the servers clean.

Then they wiped the servers’ backups clean.