Trump knocking down historic East Wing to build Ballroom - is this LEGAL?

[Tropical Wilds]

If some have an emotional investment in believing no one likes Trump and it helps them sleep through the night, let them go for it.

Link to where anybody said nobody liked him. Link the specific post.

Claiming poll numbers to "prove" someone is "objectively" popular or unpopular is more like middle school slam book stuff that actually acknowledging that someone you find unpopular will be very popular with someone else. That is the way of things. Claiming someone is "objectively" popular or unpopular is resenting an either/or as an absolute that does not exist.

So the issue most definitely is you don't understand what the phrase "objectively" means. Again, "objectively" and "universally" are not synonyms. "Objectively" means a finding based off of data, statistics, or other waypoints rooted in documentable expression of information not influenced by opinion.

"Pineapple pizza is disgusting" is not a statement of objective popularity. It is a subjective declaration.

However, if somebody said "I own a pizza place, I sell 100 pizzas a day, 70 of them are pepperoni, but only 10 of those pizzas are pineapple pizza, and it is my lowest-selling pizza." and I said "Objectively speaking, your pineapple pizza is an unpopular pizza with your customers," that would be correct. It means that 90% of the pizzas going out the door are not pineapple pizza. It means that if pineapple pizza were no longer served, it would only impact 10 sales, vs if they stopped selling pepperoni, which would impact 70 sales. It doesn't mean that no pineapple pizzas are sold. It means they are the least sold. They are objectively unpopular. Pepperoni, which make up a majority of sales (using informed deduction we now know this pizzaria only sells 3 flavors, because knowing 70 are pepperoni and the highest and 10 are pineapple and that is the lowest, we know there are 20 of another flavor being sold) are pepperoni and, objectively speaking, pepperoni is their most popular pizza by a wide margin.

Trump is objectively unpopular. If you were to get a room of 100 people, 60 of them would dislike him. A wider margin of people would dislike him than would claim to like him. If I told you the plane you were getting on had a 60% chance of crashing, you wouldn't put your grandchild on the plane because, objectively speaking, a plane that has a higher chance of crashing means you're running a high risk of being seriously hurt or killed. You would not hang your hat on the "well, that means there's a 40% chance it's the safest plane in the world and everybody loves it, which means it isn't universally regarded as unsafe, therefore, it is not an unsafe plane because there isn't a consensus the plane is unsafe." You'd say "that isn't a safe bet for my grandchild" and take a bus.

That is what objective statistical interpretation is.

Honestly, that got a chuckle. There is a distinct anti-Republican bias in general and an anti-Trump bias in particular on CF. Yet this is unnoticed?

It is unnoticed because, like Trump's popularity, only a minority of people believe such a thing.

Since I'm realizing you dwell only in the land of absolutes, I suspect you're confusing "I can't say whatever I want on CF and whenever I express extremist Republican/nationalist/Christian nationalist ideology and/or insult people for not being extremist Republican/nationalist/Christian nationalists" with "I'm being victimized for my Republican beliefs because there is a anti-Republican bias on CF."

While I don't doubt you find that frustrating, that is not indicative of an "everybody is out to get me" attitude that translates into victimhood.

Perhaps we are wasting our time responding to each other. I'm sitting here trying to think how to respond further without coming across as insulting, and I cannot. Call that a personal failing if you wish, and I'll acknowledge it.

Well, I have a degree in statistical analysis and was able to explain to you, twice, how objective reporting and objective popularity works without being insulting. If admitting graciously you were wrong apologizing or not talking to somebody who has handily proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that you are clearly wrong without being insulting is too high a hurdle for you to attempt, I'll gladly accept your telling me I'm the bigger, better informed person out of the two of us. Frankly, it's not an admission I needed as I'm sure this has already observed by others, but to hear you admit it is mildly refreshing.

However, it does reek a lot of taking your toys and going home to mom because you have nothing you can say in your own defense of the bizarre, absolute losing horse you've decided to ride past the point of all common sense. At the end of the day, I furnished links to support my position. The only thing you did was claim I made a statement that I didn't, then provide a link to a study that says he has a 40% approval rating and a 57% disapproval rating which... Wait for it... Proves my point that he is objectively unpopular. All your link shows is that despite his latest political fumble and display of total ineptitude at being a president, his approval ratings have stayed low, but flatly low, with neither growth or further collapse. This goes to illustrate the point that no matter how awful he is, there are people so indoctrinated into his ideology that no matter how destructive he is, there will be somebody fangirling for him on their barn roof or celebrating a 40% approval as not really that bad.

It also means there's another contingent of people that hear how he has sabotaged America and say "of course he did... He's Trump. I'm no longer surprised by just how low he will go to protect his friends, groom his ego, or make a buck." Almost 50 million people losing their WIC, government assistance, and access to food? Of course... I knew it was coming. I hate it, but I'm not surprised. Glad to know his ballroom is going well, though. Must have suitably grand settings to yell "let them eat cake" from.

Like, seriously... Just take two seconds to think about what you're saying. Really think about it. You are claiming he is NOT objectively unpopular, there ARE people that like him, but when you express you like him, you experience consistent bias...? On a place like CF...? Those are conflicting statements. If he was objectively popular, well liked, and more people liked him than didn't, why would you be experiencing consistent negative treatment or experience bias for also saying you like him? You would simply be expressing you hold the majority opinion.

 

[probinson]

By the concocted definition of "objectively unpopular" being bandied about in this thread, nearly EVERY US President has been "objectively unpopular", that is, a majority disapproval, for some or most of their term.

Trump 2nd term:

Biden:

Trump 1st term:

Obama:

Bush 2:

Clinton:

Bush 1:

Reagan:

Carter:

What does this prove? Not much, other than most Presidents while in office have been "objectively unpopular" by the definition in this thread. What Trump's second term approval chart does show is that the narrative that people are souring on him is false. He may be "objectively unpopular", but of all the approval ratings data shown here, Trump's is BY FAR the most stable, meaning people aren't changing their opinions about him, for better or worse.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

By the concocted definition of "objectively unpopular" being bandied about in this thread, nearly EVERY US President has been "objectively unpopular", that is, a majority disapproval, for some or most of their term.

Trump 2nd term:
View attachment 372285

Biden:
View attachment 372288

Trump 1st term:
View attachment 372287

Obama:
View attachment 372289

Bush 2:
View attachment 372290

Clinton:
View attachment 372291

Bush 1:
View attachment 372292

Reagan:
View attachment 372293

Carter:
View attachment 372294

What does this prove? Not much, other than most Presidents while in office have been "objectively unpopular" by the definition in this thread. What Trump's second term approval chart does show is that the narrative that people are souring on him is false. He may be "objectively unpopular", but of all the approval ratings data shown here, Trumps is BY FAR the most stable, meaning people aren't changing their opinions on him, for better or worse.

When the blue line goes up over the red the president has objectively more approval than disapproval. Trump has *never* been in the +approval. All the ones you’ve listed aside from Bush 2 and Biden have ended their term with a net + approval rating.

 

[probinson]

When the blue line goes up over the red the president has objectively more approval than disapproval.

I would prefer the term "empirically", because polls are subject to bias, which by their very nature, makes them not so "objective". You can "empirically" refer to the data available, but it's important to understand if there is bias inherent in that data. Just look at how far off the polls were in this last election.

Nate Silver said this on his site yesterday.

Inevitably, there’s a lot of disagreement from survey to survey, not just because of statistical variation but because pollsters have long had trouble pegging down Trump’s popularity — and often underestimated it.​

​

How popular is Donald Trump?

Silver Bulletin approval ratings for President Trump — and all presidents since Truman.

www.natesilver.net

​

​

If you follow the link above where it states pollsters "often underestimated" Trump's approval rating, it says this:

The short answer is that the polls were biased again — but not to the same extent that they overestimated Joe Biden in 2020. Nor, with no clear favorite heading into Election Day, was the outcome anywhere near as much of a surprise as in 2016 (unless perhaps you were consuming too much “hopium”). By some measures, in fact, 2024 was a considerably above-average year. The polls weren’t that far off the mark. The problem was that nearly all of them erred in the same direction, again underestimating Trump and other Republicans.​

What happened? The polls were BIASED again, consistently underestimating Trump. Something that is biased is, by definition, NOT "objective".

Trump has *never* been in the +approval.

Look closer at Trump's first term. He did move into the "objectively popular" category for three brief stints in early 2020. You could "objectively" say that Trump has ALMOST NEVER been in the +approval, but the data shows that your absolute claim that he has *never* had a positive approval rating is false.

Regardless, it's clear to see from the data available that all Presidents have been "objectively unpopular" for large swaths of their presidency. I just don't know what anyone thinks this proves or doesn't prove.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

By the concocted definition of "objectively unpopular" being bandied about in this thread, nearly EVERY US President has been "objectively unpopular", that is, a majority disapproval, for some or most of their term.

Trump 2nd term:
View attachment 372285

Biden:
View attachment 372288

Trump 1st term:
View attachment 372287

Obama:
View attachment 372289

Bush 2:
View attachment 372290

Clinton:
View attachment 372291

Bush 1:
View attachment 372292

Reagan:
View attachment 372293

Carter:
View attachment 372294

What does this prove? Not much, other than most Presidents while in office have been "objectively unpopular" by the definition in this thread. What Trump's second term approval chart does show is that the narrative that people are souring on him is false. He may be "objectively unpopular", but of all the approval ratings data shown here, Trump's is BY FAR the most stable, meaning people aren't changing their opinions about him, for better or worse.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here, since I at no point said that no president has ever been objectively unpopular at one point or another during their presidency. I said that he is an objectively unpopular president who has the lowest peak approval rating and the highest peak disapproval rating and he is an objectively unpopular president, which he is, based off of his peaks, valleys, the fact that he's only won the popular vote once despite running for president four times, and his current approval rating.

I also never said that people are souring on him. I said that he has remained consistently low, having no real popularity peaks that have brought him to a place where more people thought he was doing well than aren't. Look at your charts. He is the only president to have a sustained period where his approval is above his disapproval. In fact, looking at those charts, he's never done it in his second term, he's not close to doing it, and if we look at the 48-months he was president in his first term, there were only 4-ish months where anybody thought he was doing a good job... Coincidentally, it was during Covid, when he was listening to Fauci. When he started railing against Fauci and the CDC and talking about injecting bleach and taking horse medicines, his popularity tanked again... But it illustrates that people were willing to believe he could be a leader capable of not terribly running the country and he had the potential to appeal to moderates and light bipartisan favor, flying in the face of the "everybody hates Trump all the time for no reason and there's nothing he can do to get some people to support him" narrative by those who like to victim shop.

 

[Bradskii]

That, as you put it, is my call.

Agreed. And discounted because of...facts.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I would prefer the term "empirically", because polls are subject to bias, which by their very nature, makes them not so "objective". You can "empirically" refer to the data available, but it's important to understand if there is bias inherent in that data. Just look at how far off the polls were in this last election.

You can prefer "empirically," but that's preferring a different word that says the same thing.

And if you will look, the stuff I cited was a variety of polls where the declared margin of error made clear that there was no way to read the data so that he was objectively popular. A disapproval rating of 60% with a 3 +/- margin of error means that between 57% and 63% dislike him. Clearly, stilly more disliked than liked.

Nate Silver said this on his site yesterday.

Inevitably, there’s a lot of disagreement from survey to survey, not just because of statistical variation but because pollsters have long had trouble pegging down Trump’s popularity — and often underestimated it.​

​

How popular is Donald Trump?

Silver Bulletin approval ratings for President Trump — and all presidents since Truman.

www.natesilver.net

​

​

If you follow the link above where it states pollsters "often underestimated" Trump's approval rating, it says this:

The short answer is that the polls were biased again — but not to the same extent that they overestimated Joe Biden in 2020. Nor, with no clear favorite heading into Election Day, was the outcome anywhere near as much of a surprise as in 2016 (unless perhaps you were consuming too much “hopium”). By some measures, in fact, 2024 was a considerably above-average year. The polls weren’t that far off the mark. The problem was that nearly all of them erred in the same direction, again underestimating Trump and other Republicans.​

What happened? The polls were BIASED again, consistently underestimating Trump. Something that is biased is, by definition, NOT "objective".

Not all polls are created equal. Presidential polls that determine who people will and won't vote for are liquid polls, meaning, their results influence their results. By saying Biden is clearly favored to win, it will cause people who are voting for Biden to not vote, and driving people who want Trump to vote. Liquid polls take a snapshot of a variable that will inform that performance of said variable. More people may well have voted for Biden making him the clear favorite, but chose not to because his polls had him a lock. That liquidity actually is attributed to Trump's win in 2016... Hillary was a polling lock, so people stayed home, resulting in her being the most popular pick for president that ultimately lost the vote. Add to that the answer to the question is volatile... People change their votes easily and quickly, right until election day. So it's a snapshot of a variable that is a variable in a liquid poll that informs the next poll.

Performance and popularity polls are static polls, meaning their results do not influence their results. Nobody will change a behavior or an action based off of what the popularity polls dictate. Somebody will not declare they agree with what he's doing because of how the last poll reviewed him. While the polling subjects are also variable, meaning they can change their opinions, the static nature of the poll means the outcome of this poll will have no influence on the next poll.

The problem is in dumbing down the concept of statistics to fit in news stories or appeal to the masses, we act like all polls are equal, their impact equal, and their results/findings equal. They are not. The public's fundamental lack of understanding of statistical analysis doesn't automatically make the poll wrong, it just makes the average American uninformed as to what a poll actually means and how one should properly manage and extrapolate the data. We use liquid polls ("if the election were held today" polls) to try and guestimate the results of a static poll (who will be the president based off of votes cast). Basically, the most variable type of poll to make an informed guess as to the outcome as the least variable type of poll. Hence the huge margins of error and the extreme unpredictability as to how they will skew. Read the books of Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr... They all specifically mention this in various points of their stories. It's a concept they understand, that their teams understand... In fact, it's why Hillary's (or was it Gore's...? I forget) campaign was pushing for news agencies to stop reporting on polls. It was leading to burnout and false data which was influencing the voter's behavior.

Regardless, it's clear to see from the data available that all Presidents have been "objectively unpopular" for large swaths of their presidency. I just don't know what anyone thinks this proves or doesn't prove.

For part, or even large swaths? Yes. For an overwhelming majority? No. That's unique to Trump.

He was about even or slightly above 50% popularity for 11.8% of his first presidency, 0% of his second (so far). Biden for 23ish%. Everybody else, 40-50% or more.

 

[probinson]

I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here,

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

since I at no point said that no president has ever been objectively unpopular at one point or another during their presidency. I said that he is an objectively unpopular president who has the lowest peak approval rating and the highest peak disapproval rating and he is an objectively unpopular president, which he is, based off of his peaks, valleys, the fact that he's only won the popular vote once despite running for president four times, and his current approval rating.

What "peaks" and "valleys" are you referring to? This is pretty much a flatline across the board.

I also never said that people are souring on him.

Sure you did. Specifically, you said:

"It’s a statement that the red state people crying into their Cheerios over Trump doing something that impacts them badly have nothing to cry about as they were warned it would happen. Honestly the red staters bemoaning the bad things happening to them goes to speak more to his unpopularity than his popularity."​

​

You're not the only one to posit the theory that voters have "buyer's remorse" with Trump.

Has Trump Buyer's Remorse Already Set In? | Opinion

A slew of polls marked the first 100 days of the second Trump presidency. All the major ones showed increasing disapproval of Donald Trump's handling of his job during his second term.

www.newsweek.com

Are Trump Supporters Having Buyer’s Remorse?

As tariffs bite, farmers go under, and ICE raids hit Democratic strongholds, many Trump supporters are reconsidering their allegiance.

www.levelman.com

Trump's Latino Supporters Are Having Buyer's Remorse

The President made notable gains with Hispanic voters in 2024. But many are having a change of heart just 100 days into the second Trump Administration, writes Alejandro Puyana.

time.com

‘Very Scary’: Swing State Trump Voters Have Buyer’s Remorse

They voted for President Donald Trump to bring prices down and bolster the economy. Now they regret their vote.

www.thedailybeast.com

The Trump Backers Who Have Buyer’s Remorse

With every new policy and offhand remark, Trump belies the imaginary versions of himself that inspired many of his supporters.

www.theatlantic.com

If there is any "buyer's remorse" over Trump, it is certainly not reflected in his approval polling, which has remained "objectively" constant. If there were this epidemic of buyer's remorse, one would expect to see it reflected in his approval rating as people defected from him. But that's not happening, despite all the chaos he's instigated.

I said that he has remained consistently low, having no real popularity peaks that have brought him to a place where more people thought he was doing well than aren't. Look at your charts. He is the only president to have a sustained period where his approval is above his disapproval.

That's demonstrably false. Biden only had a positive approval rating for the first 6 months of his presidency. The remainder of his 3-1/2 years he was, to use your vernacular, "objectively unpopular".

In fact, looking at those charts, he's never done it in his second term, he's not close to doing it, and if we look at the 48-months he was president in his first term, there were only 4-ish months where anybody thought he was doing a good job...

Yes, Trump has a higher disapproval rating than approval. To your point, he has for his whole political career. And yet, he's won not one but TWO national US elections. Does that tell you something about the "objectivity" of the polls you're citing? It really should.

Coincidentally, it was during Covid, when he was listening to Fauci.

When he started railing against Fauci and the CDC and talking about injecting bleach and taking horse medicines, his popularity tanked again...

Even the self-appointed fact-checkers admit that Trump never told anyone to "inject bleach".

Trump Didn't Tell People to 'Inject Bleach' for COVID-19. But Here's What He Did Say

Trump's confusing remarks near the start of the coronavirus pandemic were revived during the 2024 presidential campaign.

www.snopes.com

And Ivermectin is not "horse medicine". Before it became a political flashpoint (note that the following article was authored in 2011), Ivermectin was approved for human use in 1987 and was labeled a "wonder drug".

There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.​

​

Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective - PMC

Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

Your regurgitation of demonstrably false, yet sanctioned, COVID propaganda calls into question your objectivity.

But it illustrates that people were willing to believe he could be a leader capable of not terribly running the country and he had the potential to appeal to moderates and light bipartisan favor, flying in the face of the "everybody hates Trump all the time for no reason and there's nothing he can do to get some people to support him" narrative by those who like to victim shop.

I don't really care if people think Trump is popular or not. I'm certainly not a fan. Trump was a catalyst for me to change my voter registration from Republican to Independent in 2016. But what you're arguing here defies reality. How can a person who is "objectively unpopular" win a national election TWICE? For any "objective" person, this should call into question the objectivity of the polling.

 

[probinson]

You can prefer "empirically," but that's preferring a different word that says the same thing.

Nope. "Empirical" data can be biased, therefore making it not "objective".

Not all polls are created equal. Presidential polls that determine who people will and won't vote for are liquid polls, meaning, their results influence their results. By saying Biden is clearly favored to win, it will cause people who are voting for Biden to not vote, and driving people who want Trump to vote.

Possibly. This is a riddle not even pollsters completely understand.

Performance and popularity polls are static polls, meaning their results do not influence their results. Nobody will change a behavior or an action based off of what the popularity polls dictate.

Then what purpose do they serve, in your opinion?

Somebody will not declare they agree with what he's doing because of how the last poll reviewed him. While the polling subjects are also variable, meaning they can change their opinions, the static nature of the poll means the outcome of this poll will have no influence on the next poll

Clearly you're unaware of just how powerful groupthink can be.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

If you'd been following the thread, you'd know.

What "peaks" and "valleys" are you referring to? This is pretty much a flatline across the board.

View attachment 372297

That is just his second term... When you look at his first term, you see the broad spectrum which includes his peak (which was 49%) and his valley (32%). If you'd like to state that he's had flat disapproval with no peaks during his second term, you won't hear me disagree.

However, the cherry-picking of data in order to extrapolate the facts you want, while fun, doesn't change the overall data. Nor does it mean I think you particularly qualified for a discussion on statistical analysis.

Sure you did. Specifically, you said:

"It’s a statement that the red state people crying into their Cheerios over Trump doing something that impacts them badly have nothing to cry about as they were warned it would happen. Honestly the red staters bemoaning the bad things happening to them goes to speak more to his unpopularity than his popularity."​

Where in there did I say people were souring on him...?

Somebody else said:

"We can argue about polls and percentages all day long, yet it remains more than a few do like Trump. A tacit admission of this can be found right here on CF whenever something bad happens in a red state and someone invariably chortles that they got what they voted for."

To which I said:

"And somebody saying that a red state is having the say they voted for isn’t a tacit admission that he’s a popular president. It’s a statement that the red state people crying into their Cheerios over Trump doing something that impacts them badly have nothing to cry about as they were warned it would happen. Honestly the red staters bemoaning the bad things happening to them goes to speak more to his unpopularity than his popularity."

Again, you disingenuously cherry-picked a statement to lop out the part where it made clear I was explaining somebody else's rationale for a statement they made, not making a statement myself. Not to mention, nowhere in there does it say he's becoming unpopular. I'm saying that people's lack of sympathy for people who voted for him crying about his policies are hurting them stems from how everybody was warned this is the president he'd be and they're having the day they voted for.

Either you need to read the thread to catch up with the conversation, or you are resorting to some pretty desperate moves to try and contort a narrative that makes you feel better, and that's gross.

You're not the only one to posit the theory that voters have "buyer's remorse" with Trump.

Has Trump Buyer's Remorse Already Set In? | Opinion

A slew of polls marked the first 100 days of the second Trump presidency. All the major ones showed increasing disapproval of Donald Trump's handling of his job during his second term.

www.newsweek.com

Are Trump Supporters Having Buyer’s Remorse?

As tariffs bite, farmers go under, and ICE raids hit Democratic strongholds, many Trump supporters are reconsidering their allegiance.

www.levelman.com

Trump's Latino Supporters Are Having Buyer's Remorse

The President made notable gains with Hispanic voters in 2024. But many are having a change of heart just 100 days into the second Trump Administration, writes Alejandro Puyana.

time.com

‘Very Scary’: Swing State Trump Voters Have Buyer’s Remorse

They voted for President Donald Trump to bring prices down and bolster the economy. Now they regret their vote.

www.thedailybeast.com

The Trump Backers Who Have Buyer’s Remorse

With every new policy and offhand remark, Trump belies the imaginary versions of himself that inspired many of his supporters.

www.theatlantic.com

If there is any "buyer's remorse" over Trump, it is certainly not reflected in his approval polling, which has remained "objectively" constant. If there were this epidemic of buyer's remorse, one would expect to see it reflected in his approval rating as people defected from him. But that's not happening, despite all the chaos he's instigated.

I never said anything about "buyer's remorse." You invented a narrative, inflicted it on me, hurt your own feelings over it, and now are spending your time proving to me why something that I never said that hurt your feelings isn't true. And for some reason you think because other editorials have said it and you intentionally were deceptive about something I said, I need to be answerable to your deception and their editorials.

Sorry, your girl doesn't play that game. Argue with yourself, because you won't get anywhere with me over it.

That's demonstrably false. Biden only had a positive approval rating for the first 6 months of his presidency. The remainder of his 3-1/2 years he was, to use your vernacular, "objectively unpopular".

View attachment 372298

So two presidents. I didn't scroll up enough to read Biden's, but yes, he was objectively unpopular through his whole presidency. Something I pointed out later when I said he was only popular for 23% of his presidency, which is still twice as long as Trump was. That all being said, however, he was an objectively unpopular president.

Yes, Trump has a higher disapproval rating than approval. To your point, he has for his whole political career. And yet, he's won not one but TWO national US elections. Does that tell you something about the "objectivity" of the polls you're citing? It really should.

It tells me I understand more about how elections work than you do, apparently.

He's run for president four times, yet has only won the popular vote once. Because we don't elect based off of popular vote, we do it based off the electoral college, it means he still got to be president because he won in the only metric that counts, and he did so twice. However, that doesn't mean he's objectively popular. It means the system we've set up to elect presidents means occasionally the most popular person for president won't actually be president.

I'll take the eye roll as an admission that you know I'm right, but it bothers you.

Even the self-appointed fact-checkers admit that Trump never told anyone to "inject bleach".

Trump Didn't Tell People to 'Inject Bleach' for COVID-19. But Here's What He Did Say

Trump's confusing remarks near the start of the coronavirus pandemic were revived during the 2024 presidential campaign.

www.snopes.com

Sigh...

Y'all need to really read the things before you post them as things that supposedly support your claims. It makes things easy for me, but it's just so disappointing to see how little people actually research things and how hard they will work to dwell in the land of misinformation so as to avoid dealing with how awful Trump was during COVID.

"Rating: Mostly False

What's True
During an April 2020 media briefing, Trump did ask members of the government's coronavirus task force to look into whether disinfectants could be injected inside people to treat COVID-19. But when a reporter asked in a follow-up question whether cleaning products like bleach and isopropyl alcohol would be injected into a person, the then-president said those products would be used for sterilizing an area, not for injections.

However, at no point did Trump explicitly tell people they could or should inject bleach into their bodies...
Though Trump's comments made little sense and were ridiculed and described as dangerous by experts, under any reasonable interpretation of his words, he didn't explicitly suggest people should inject themselves with bleach or other household disinfectants.

Instead, while floating the idea to the government's coronavirus task force and the media, Trump asked whether injecting disinfectants "inside" could help fight the virus, as we further outline below."

So yes, he did talk about injecting bleach. You're hanging your hat on the "Well, he didn't EXPLICITLY tell people to do that, therefore there's no problem." What the rest of us hang our hats on is that saying "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me." is not a well-informed comment to make, nor is it a presidential one. My kids, who were in middle school at the time, are able to pick out that spitballing if it's feasible to inject bleach to cure people of an illness is a profoundly moronic thing for anybody to say, but for the president to say it...? It's shockingly uninformed and dangerous.

And Ivermectin is not "horse medicine". Before it became a political flashpoint (note that the following article was authored in 2011), Ivermectin was approved for human use in 1987 and was labeled a "wonder drug".

There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.​

​

Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective - PMC

Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

Your regurgitation of demonstrably false, yet sanctioned, COVID propaganda calls into question your objectivity.

As you said, your regurgitation of demonstrably false, yet sanction COVID propaganda calls into question your objectivity.

Yes, people can be prescribed Ivermectin for human use for things like parasites, skin conditions, and related conditions, but it's no longer the first-line drug for such things (especially in the US).

However, people were not using that Ivermectin. They were using horse medicine. And officials, both dubious medical ones and personalities with no experience in the field of medicine, much less infectious diseases, were telling people how to procure it. And it wasn't the human medication they were getting, it was the horse medicine. Trump also tweeted about other treatments, unproven ones, that had no basis in medicine and led people to accessing all sorts of inappropriate medications, and lead to an increase of poisonings so demonstrable that WHO tracked it (and determined it was a largely America-specific trend related to the comments of "officials") and even led to death. The problem was so well known that livestock stores had to restrict sales and the FDA had to make numerous statements for people to stop doing it. The effect of this misinformation and the deaths it caused has been studied and is well documented. For a time, the most common call to Poison Control was related to people taking it and the officials became inundated trying to deal with it.

I don't really care if people think Trump is popular or not. I'm certainly not a fan. Trump was a catalyst for me to change my voter registration from Republican to Independent in 2016. But what you're arguing here defies reality. How can a person who is "objectively unpopular" win a national election TWICE? For any "objective" person, this should call into question the objectivity of the polling.

I mean, apparently you do care since you're fixating on it.

And again, if the election was based off of votes, he would have lost. Why? Because he was not the winner of the popular vote. A majority of voters did not choose him. He was elected based on the process we use in the states, which is influenced by popular vote, but as we've seen lead to situations where the most popular candidate isn't the one who gets elected. This is middle-school level US History and Civics information. He has run 4 times. Lost the popular vote three times. Elected twice. And he is objectively unpopular.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Nope. "Empirical" data can be biased, therefore making it not "objective".

Both objective and empirical data can be biased. Both have equal level of objectivity and are used fairly interchangeably in statistical analysis, though generally empirical data is more topline and objective is more bottom-line, meaning one is closer to the source of data collection is one is closer to the interpretation of data collection.

Possibly. This is a riddle not even pollsters completely understand.

I mean, pollsters maybe not, but statisticians, yes. They understand it.

Then what purpose do they serve, in your opinion?

Popularity polls or election polls?

In my opinion, popularity polls serve (and have historically been used) as a means for various people (in this case, the government) to understand their job performance as it is interpreted among the American people. In lieu of repeated voting to determine if a president is popular, effective, or if their leadership is popular, effective, and serving the will of the American people, they use the polls. They see how actions, perceived or actual or proposed, impact the American people and adjust accordingly. Typically in first-term leadership, they do it so they can hold the job for another term or support their party through an election. There's other tertiary purposes, but that's the basic point main point. It's the basis of action and strategy to reflect the will of the people and protect the parties that are in or want to come to power.

Election polls by pollsters merely help comfort the people through the election process and satiate the need to feel like the future is more concrete than we suppose it to be. People don't enjoy living in the void of uncertainty for the years. They're there to provide comfort, reinforce bias, or other methods. They're not particularly accurate about anything. The ones taken by the candidates are slightly moreso, but that's even pretty dubious.

Clearly you're unaware of just how powerful groupthink can be.

Groupthink is not really a factor in popularity ratings.

 

[probinson]

If you'd been following the thread, you'd know.

I've been following the thread. I have no idea what you think labeling Trump "objectively unpopular" proves or why you've fixated on it. Perhaps you could succinctly summarize why you're belaboring this point.

That is just his second term..

Isn't that's that what we're talking about?

When you look at his first term, you see the broad spectrum which includes his peak (which was 49%) and his valley (32%). If you'd like to state that he's had flat disapproval with no peaks during his second term, you won't hear me disagree.

However, the cherry-picking of data in order to extrapolate the facts you want, while fun, doesn't change the overall data. Nor does it mean I think you particularly qualified for a discussion on statistical analysis.

Cool. I don't think you're particularly qualified for this discussion either. Look at that! We have something in common after all.

Where in there did I say people were souring on him...?

You stated that people were "crying in their Cheerios" over how his actions were affecting them. What exactly do you think they're "crying" about if not souring on Trump?

Again, you disingenuously cherry-picked a statement to lop out the part where it made clear I was explaining somebody else's rationale for a statement they made, not making a statement myself.

So you don't think people are "crying in their Cheerios"?

I never said anything about "buyer's remorse." You invented a narrative, inflicted it on me, hurt your own feelings over it, and now are spending your time proving to me why something that I never said that hurt your feelings isn't true. And for some reason you think because other editorials have said it and you intentionally were deceptive about something I said, I need to be answerable to your deception and their editorials.

My "feelings"? Are you incapable of engaging in an "objective" discussion without getting personal?

Something I pointed out later when I said he was only popular for 23% of his presidency, which is still twice as long as Trump was. That all being said, however, he was an objectively unpopular president.

Again, what is the point? Stating that Biden was popular twice as long as Trump reeks of playground banter, and I have no idea what you think it proves.

It tells me I understand more about how elections work than you do, apparently.

Alrighty then. Maybe you should go help the Democrats. They are clearly in need someone with your higher understanding, since they can't seem to figure out how to win elections.

I'll take the eye roll as an admission that you know I'm right, but it bothers you.

"Objectively", Fauci was such a great and wonderful guy, he needed a pardon from Biden to excuse him from accountability for more than a decade of his career leading up to the pandemic.

So yes, he did talk about injecting bleach.

If you want to keep misleading people on that point, that's certainly your prerogative.

However, people were not using that Ivermectin....

Because this thread isn't about COVID, I'm going to ignore this Gish gallop, but suffice to say if people read your links closely, they'll see that the content at your links does not support your contrived summary of events.

I mean, apparently you do care since you're fixating on it.

If anyone is "fixating" on it, it's "objectively" you.

And again, if the election was based off of votes, he would have lost. Why? Because he was not the winner of the popular vote.

Actually, he did win the popular vote in 2024.

A majority of voters did not choose him.

Yes, they did, in 2024.

He has run 4 times. Lost the popular vote three times. Elected twice.

The most recent of which he won the popular vote.

And he is objectively unpopular.

The polls show that the majority of people think he is unpopular.

 

[probinson]

Both objective and empirical data can be biased.

If something is "objective", it is by definition "unbiased".

From Merriam Webster:

OBJECTIVE: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations​

I mean, pollsters maybe not, but statisticians, yes. They understand it.

No one fully understands exactly how polls influence people's decision to vote or not vote.

In my opinion, popularity polls serve (and have historically been used) as a means for various people (in this case, the government) to understand their job performance as it is interpreted among the American people. In lieu of repeated voting to determine if a president is popular, effective, or if their leadership is popular, effective, and serving the will of the American people, they use the polls. They see how actions, perceived or actual or proposed, impact the American people and adjust accordingly. Typically in first-term leadership, they do it so they can hold the job for another term or support their party through an election. There's other tertiary purposes, but that's the basic point main point. It's the basis of action and strategy to reflect the will of the people and protect the parties that are in or want to come to power.

That's not what you said earlier. You said, "Performance and popularity polls are static polls, meaning their results do not influence their results. Nobody will change a behavior or an action based off of what the popularity polls dictate." But here, you just said that these polls cause people to "adjust accordingly". So popularity polls absolutely do result in people changing behaviors and actions based on the results.

Groupthink is not really a factor in popularity ratings.

Groupthink is a factor in everything. If the prevailing narrative is that candidate X is "objectively unpopular", there will be those that will be afraid to go against the grain and state their approval for such a person. And it works both ways. If you are opposed to the candidate your preferred political party has embraced, you may be wary of stating your disapproval publicly. To pretend this doesn't factor into popularity ratings is remarkably naive.

 

[DaisyDay]

Consistent in his mediocrity, lol.

Trump is many things, but 'mediocre' is not one of them.

 

[Yarddog]

As an Aussie looking on - I just shake my head in wonder.

First - he was meant to be talking to the head of NATO.

Second - he decides he would rather bring out plans for his ballroom. "No body's ever seen anything like it."
(I mean - can he learn another phrase?)

Third - is this even LEGAL? Isn't there history that should be preserved? Isn't this part of a National Trust or something?

Fourth - who is paying for it?
Because now the bill's gone up to $300 MILLION.
Great estimates Trump! Nice job!

For a gaudy, golden throne-room to his NPD. I mean - I guess it makes sense to retrofit the whole place after his own heart. He owns it. According to his latest Truth Social fantasies - he's the King who poos on his people!

And this is the ultimate metaphor for it.

Tearing down the rose garden, ancient trees, and now the East Wing itself - and remaking it in his own image.

It's not legal but Congress won't stop him. Tax payers will pay for it when all is said and done.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Trump is many things, but 'mediocre' is not one of them.

I agree, he has multiple levels to ascend in order to hit that lofty benchmark of "mediocre."

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I've been following the thread. I have no idea what you think labeling Trump "objectively unpopular" proves or why you've fixated on it. Perhaps you could succinctly summarize why you're belaboring this point.

I'm not even remotely fixated on it. It was a general, throwaway statement that seemed pretty not-debatable to me. I stated he was objectively unpopular. Somebody said he wasn't. I cited the metrics I used to arrive at his objective unpopularity, gave links, showed polls. Two people then hyper fixated on it because apparently acknowledging his objective unpopularity really, really bothers them, which is whatever because I'm well aware that this is more about making people who are a little too invested in an unpopular president feel less uncomfortable in being so all-in on an unpopular person. They'd rather just pretend he's great, we're great, they're great, he's a great guy, everybody loves him, blah blah blah. I've talked with enough people firmly down the Trump rabbithole to know a coping mechanism for uncomfortable truths that challenge their comfort level when I see them.

At this point, the only thing that bothers me is that two adults don't seem to know what "objectively unpopular" means.

Isn't that's that what we're talking about?

No. If you were involved with the thread and following the conversation, you would know that.

Cool. I don't think you're particularly qualified for this discussion either. Look at that! We have something in common after all.

The difference being that you don't think I'm qualified because you don't like what I'm saying. I know myself to be qualified, however, because I have a degree in statistical analysis and interpretation, worked in the field for numerous years, and have received accolades for my work. On top of that, I've repeatedly proven I know what I'm talking about by citing my work.

You stated that people were "crying in their Cheerios" over how his actions were affecting them. What exactly do you think they're "crying" about if not souring on Trump?

The answer is in the statement I made:

"It’s a statement that the red state people crying into their Cheerios over Trump doing something that impacts them badly have nothing to cry about as they were warned it would happen." Just because he has done something they don't like or is negatively impacting them doesn't mean they have soured on him as a whole. Obama did things I didn't like, but it didn't mean I stopped liking him as a president. It simply means he did things I don't agree with.

So you don't think people are "crying in their Cheerios"?

So, again... That statement is explaining why other people have expressed they have no sympathy over those crying into their Cheerios when they have the day they voted for. It was not a statement by me about something I believe that translates into an overall souring of Trump. That poster asked why other people have the "have the day you voted for" mentality, I explained why they do, that's it. I'm not really sure what your reading comprehension disconnect is, here.

My "feelings"? Are you incapable of engaging in an "objective" discussion without getting personal?

Uh, yes. I've been doing it this whole time. You're upset over a narrative you invented that I never said. That's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. And now you're upset that I'm pointing out you're upset by a narrative you invented. None of that is a personal attack, those are all reactions you are having to a totally made-up scenario you've concocted but attributed to me.

Again, what is the point? Stating that Biden was popular twice as long as Trump reeks of playground banter, and I have no idea what you think it proves.

Stating a fact is playground banter? I said Biden was an unpopular president who, despite his unpopularity which you said was a lot, he was still popular for longer than Trump has been in either of his terms. Therefore, if you think Biden was unpopular for a majority of his presidency, you shouldn't be arguing that somehow Trump is popular when he was less popular than somebody you believe to be unpopular. And since the discussion is ranking popularity of presidents, it's playground banter to point out Trump comes out of the bottom?

I mean, I'm sorry understanding and repeating statistics feels mean to you... I guess? But most people are able to look at facts like this and not be personally offended by it. I'm not sure why you would find it playground insults to point out the obvious, unless you were Trump or somehow deeply invested personally in how his administration performs.

Alrighty then. Maybe you should go help the Democrats. They are clearly in need someone with your higher understanding, since they can't seem to figure out how to win elections.

Now *that* is playground banter. One small step below saying "well if you like them so much why don't you marry them?"

"Objectively", Fauci was such a great and wonderful guy, he needed a pardon from Biden to excuse him from accountability for more than a decade of his career leading up to the pandemic.

Ignoring that you've shown, again, your complete lack of understanding on the meaning of the word "objectively" in a statistical application, the reason Fauci needed a preemptive pardon is because our President announced he will be seeking retribution and revenge for everybody he believes wronged him and since he doesn't have to worry about winning another election, that means he has nothing to lose and can behave as erratically as he chooses to (which we are currently seeing).

If you want to keep misleading people on that point, that's certainly your prerogative.

So, you have no point to make and no means to refute what I said. Noted.

Because this thread isn't about COVID, I'm going to ignore this Gish gallop, but suffice to say if people read your links closely, they'll see that the content at your links does not support your contrived summary of events.

SO you have no point to make, no means to refute what I said, and to admit as much is difficult for you so you'd rather ignore it. Noted again.

If anyone is "fixating" on it, it's "objectively" you.

Incorrect use of the word, again. You're just mad I'm not a sycophant for Trump and have the statistics to show that I'm not in the minority.

Actually, he did win the popular vote in 2024.

Yes, they did, in 2024.



The most recent of which he won the popular vote.

Again, being intentionally deceptive to make your argument appear stronger than it is. The fact that you'd outright lie to make it seem like you're making a point is just... Sad.

What I said:

"He's run for president four times, yet has only won the popular vote once. Because we don't elect based off of popular vote, we do it based off the electoral college, it means he still got to be president because he won in the only metric that counts, and he did so twice." and then again later in the post I was clearly talking about the election he didn't win by popular vote as your point was that because he won an election twice, he must be popular.

TBH, we didn't agree but at least I thought you had intellectual integrity when it came to these discussions. Now... Not so much.

The polls show that the majority of people think he is unpopular.

Holy. Cow. All it took was you dissecting my posts line-by-line, adopting COVID denyer ideology, saying I was wrong but not citing anything or citing things you clearly didn't read, and outright lie about things I've said, so that we could land at you FINALLY admitting that, yes, the man is objectively unpopular.

What. A. Journey. Just to arrive at the destination I was at the WHOLE time.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

If something is "objective", it is by definition "unbiased".

From Merriam Webster:

OBJECTIVE: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations​

Cute. Now ask Merriam Webster if objective and empirical data can be biased. Because that's what we're talking about. Or ask Google. Or anybody who has taken a high school statistics class.

The answer is yes. At all points during data collection and analysis, objective and empirical data can have bias, and part of the job of one collecting data and the subsequent data analysis is to include what steps were taken to minimize bias. Studies, real ones, and statistical analysis reports have either preambles or conclusions that include the steps they took to identify and diffuse bias.

For example, I acknowledge I am biased against Trump, so when I said he is objectively unpopular, I sought out the polls, researched their +/-, mentally calculated the range in which that pushed the results in either direction, compared it to other presidents, and arrived at the conclusion he is objectively unpopular.

You acknowledge you're not biased against Trump, therefore you look at the statistics that show he's not cracked 45% approval and interpret that not as him being unpopular, but his approval being steady, and there is merit that speaks to popularity in said stability. That is coded language to support your bias. Therefore, your claim he's not objectively unpopular is false, as your reporting language is coded to support a bias, the empirical data shows his +/- never puts his range higher than 46%, and the general threshold to report a finding as objectively factual is typically around 60%. 45% is well below that. You also revealed that you felt Biden to be unpopular, and when it's shown that Trump hasn't even hit that low benchmark, which by deduction means that when you apply the data in another context that supports your bias (you don't like Biden, his statistics show he's not popular, therefore he's not popular) and arrive at a different conclusion, you have a double-bias that's unresolved.

No one fully understands exactly how polls influence people's decision to vote or not vote.

Statisticians certainly understand it. You'll notice I explained it. Do they understand it completely? No. But better than pollsters and certainly better than at least two people currently on this thread talking to me.

That's not what you said earlier. You said, "Performance and popularity polls are static polls, meaning their results do not influence their results. Nobody will change a behavior or an action based off of what the popularity polls dictate." But here, you just said that these polls cause people to "adjust accordingly". So popularity polls absolutely do result in people changing behaviors and actions based on the results.

Dude, just say you're not paying attention or you don't get it, or you don't want to get it, you just want to try and catch me in a "gotcha" so you can pretend that how you want to view Trump is somehow now right. Cherry picking my explaining this to you, cutting out the context, and acting like you've somehow made a point is really lame and disingenuous.

So, again, what I said is:

"Liquid polls take a snapshot of a variable that will inform that performance of said variable... People change their votes easily and quickly, right until election day. So it's a snapshot of a variable that is a variable in a liquid poll that informs the next poll."

The variable is the voter and their voting behavior. The snapshot is of that vote. When a poll released says "candidate X shows 60% of eligible voters will vote for them," it means that the variable (the voter and their behavior) will change... Less people will show up to vote for X because they think it's a lock, more people will show up for Y because they believe their vote will matter.

Then I said:

"Performance and popularity polls are static polls, meaning their results do not influence their results. Nobody will change a behavior or an action based off of what the popularity polls dictate. Somebody will not declare they agree with what he's doing because of how the last poll reviewed him. While the polling subjects are also variable, meaning they can change their opinions, the static nature of the poll means the outcome of this poll will have no influence on the next poll."

So if somebody finds candidate X to be going a good job, they won't suddenly say he's doing a bad job on the next poll because the last poll found that most believe candidate X is doing a bad job. I was very, very clearly saying the people being polled do not change an action or belief based off of a static poll, that they will not look at the results of the poll and adopt a different behavior (suddenly find somebody to be popular or unpopular) because of how the poll turned out.

I at no point was saying the subject of the poll, the candidates and their initiatives, wouldn't interpret the data to make adjustments to their presidency, campaigns, or the things they champion. I said the variables won't change. Not the subject. To even pretend I'd say or imply that is really, really beyond all bounds of complete ridiculousness.

Groupthink is a factor in everything. If the prevailing narrative is that candidate X is "objectively unpopular", there will be those that will be afraid to go against the grain and state their approval for such a person. And it works both ways. If you are opposed to the candidate your preferred political party has embraced, you may be wary of stating your disapproval publicly. To pretend this doesn't factor into popularity ratings is remarkably naive.

Groupthink matters when you're all sitting around a table talking politics. It matters when you know when you're giving your answer what others will answer and that you will have immininent negative or positive repercussions for a particular answer.

In an anonymous poll conducted about presidential performance by a person you don't know when your answer will not be widely available? No, groupthink is not a factor. Statistical groupthink occurs in think tanks, round robins, focus groups, or other scenarios where data is extracted from multiple people at the same time, in each other's presence, especially when the other respondents are people they know. That is not the format for gathering information in a presidential performance poll. Beyond that, the outcome for this poll does not cause respondents to change their actions or behaviors, influicing how they will answer polls next time. Meaning this is a true, iron-clad, absolute static poll.

I'll also add that you're using the word "groupthink" incorrectly. Groupthink is an influence tracked in psychology and sociology, not statistical collection. The concept you're actually talking about or looking for are confirmation, exclusion, and sampling bias, not groupthink. However, I feel it should be pointed out that I knew what you were talking about and adapted to your verbiage for convenience and to be nice.

Not that you go line-by-line through my post (again) and pull an "A HA! Groupthink doesn't exist in statistical analysis and data collection! I got you!" down the road.

 

[probinson]

I'm not even remotely fixated on it.

Sure. I mean, maybe you don't know what the word "fixated" means. But just look at the long diatribes you're posting here. It sure looks like a "fixation" to any "objective" person.

 

[probinson]

You acknowledge you're not biased against Trump,

I did? Where? I told you that Trump was the catalyst for me changing my voter registration from Republican to Independent. I told you that I was not a fan of him. I'll add to that I've never voted for him and I don't understand his appeal to conservatives. How you got that I'm not biased against Trump from any of that is beyond me.

therefore you look at the statistics that show he's not cracked 45% approval and interpret that not as him being unpopular, but his approval being steady, and there is merit that speaks to popularity in said stability.

The main problem with this discussion is that you are making all kinds of assumptions about me that are untrue. You've concocted an image of me and my motivations to participate in this thread that are completely wrong. Because of those assumptions, you've ascribed things to me that I've never said or thought.

As long as you do that, we're both wasting our time.