John Blutarsky
Footballguy
FailHow is April 2015 the same time Trump is at in his presidency? Did I lose four years?
FailHow is April 2015 the same time Trump is at in his presidency? Did I lose four years?
It’s probably just New Math. I’m very bad at New Math.You failed again.
Stay at a Holiday Inn Express. It will help.It’s probably just New Math. I’m very bad at New Math.
I don’t think so. Making two equal six is very hard.Stay at a Holiday Inn Express. It will help.
You can figure it out.I don’t think so. Making two equal six is very hard.
He also tried to make "handling the economy" equal "approval rating".I don’t think so. Making two equal six is very hard.Stay at a Holiday Inn Express. It will help.
Why do you have to be an ### all the time ? I never said that. Read my comments and stop posting crap. You are a piece of work.He also tried to make "handling the economy" equal "approval rating".
Poor guy tries hard but just can't put it all together.
Where can I find the application for that list?Guys...let’s keep it civil.
-McJose (member of MT’s model poster list)
You don’t apply. It’s like the Masons. They’ll come to you.Where can I find the application for that list?
So hate Trump and they come to you. Which one...Joe, MT, Clayton or Aaron?You don’t apply. It’s like the Masons. They’ll come to you.
Correct.You can say the same thing about the post he was replying to.
Trump bashing threads, duh.Where can I find the application for that list?
Not by 2020. Probably eventually, and when it happens the Democrats will have a lock on the electoral college.Do you think a Democrat could flip Texas blue?
It was doing fine. But tax cuts are stimulous spending. They certainly had some marginal value but the vast majority is sitting in accounts, not being invested.Wait, many people here credit Obama for the economy.
There is no proof this round of cuts was stimulative. In fact there is plenty to the contrary. Cuts at this point are just giveaways that hurt the nation as you point out.Jackstraw said:It was doing fine. But tax cuts are stimulous spending. They certainly had some marginal value but the vast majority is sitting in accounts, not being invested.
And the opportunity costs are staggering. We could have helped education, infrastructure, healthcare. But the rich were going to get their tax cuts or turn off the spigots to conservative politicians. So what do we have to show for it. A couple of tenths on our GDP and Trillions in debt? Meh.
While I have issues with the tax law changes and no statistical proof of their effects I do have first hand experience. I'm in the upper management of a 80mil dollar company. Without question the cuts have helped our bottom line (mostly in the capital expenditure write-off aspect) and that has translated directly into raises companywide. Now I do also understand that our ownership group is different then many others and truly operate under the "do the right thing" and "share the wealth" mentality so this may not be the same for everyone. But there is no question that the multiple hundreds of employee that I work with are making more money directly due to the tax law changes.There is no proof this round of cuts was stimulative. In fact there is plenty to the contrary. Cuts at this point are just giveaways that hurt the nation as you point out.
Well I wish more companies would act that way but they don't. And good for guys taking care of the workers.While I have issues with the tax law changes and no statistical proof of there effects I do have first hand experience. I'm in the upper management of a 80mil dollar company. Without question the cuts have help our bottom line (mostly in the capital expenditure write-off aspect) and that has translated directly into raises companywide. Now I do also understand that our ownership group is different then many others and truly operate under the "do the right thing" and "share the wealth" mentality so this may not be the same for everyone. But there is no question that the multiple hundreds of employee that I work with are making more money directly due to the tax law changes.
He's only at 44% in Rasmussen? That means he's really at about 38%...ok that makes total sense.Update? I see Rasmussen has a new poll out...
Meh, it's only his lowest approval since February. He's still got to sink a few more points before really hitting the bottom.Update? I see Rasmussen has a new poll out...
And the line is INCREDIBLY flat. Apparently people saw pretty early on what he really was and they don't like it. I've posted that very same page several times and each time get the predictable "the polls that predicted a hillary win" nonsense....good times.Meh, it's only his lowest approval since February. He's still got to sink a few more points before really hitting the bottom.
Trump truly does have the lowest approval ratings of any president since polls were invented. I was checking out 538's comparison charts (scroll down) and I noticed that Trump only managed to outpoll 3 presidents for any length of time -- Truman, Carter, and Reagan. The other 3 presidents were dealing with recessions, yet Trump doesn't have that excuse to fall back on. His terrible rating is due solely to his own incompetence and unpopular positions. He really is the best of the worst.
How amusing.It seems that Rasmussen was getting spooked by the constant Disapproval Rankings for Trump, so they decided to go for some low hanging fruit:
The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Warren with 46% support to Trump’s 44%.
Oops...