Poll shows most Americans viewed Trump's Congressional address positively

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:A CNN/ORC poll conducted Tuesday night showed that most Americans had positive reactions to President Trump’s Tuesday address to joint sessions of Congress.

Reaction to speech
57% said they had a “very positive reaction to the speech”
21% said they felt “somewhat positive” about Trump’s speech.
11% said they felt “somewhat negative” about the speech
10% said they felt “very negative” in response to the speech.

In total 78% positive vs 21% negative.

Will Trump’s proposed policies will lead the country in the right direction?
69% said yes.
26% said no.

Are Trump’s proposed priorities on track?
63% said yes.
36% said no.

Are Trump's economic ideas on the right track?
72% said yes.
27% said no.

Are Trump’s proposals to combat terrorism on the right track?
70% said yes.
29% said no.

On the subject of immigration, 62% believed Trump’s proposals were on the right track. And 64% agreed with Trump’s proposed tax policies.

CNN/ORC poll: 7-in-10 speech-watchers say Trump boosted optimism

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:A CNN/ORC poll conducted Tuesday night showed that most Americans had positive reactions to President Trump’s Tuesday address to joint sessions of Congress.

Reaction to speech
57% said they had a “very positive reaction to the speech”
21% said they felt “somewhat positive” about Trump’s speech.
11% said they felt “somewhat negative” about the speech
10% said they felt “very negative” in response to the speech.

In total 78% positive vs 21% negative.

Will Trump’s proposed policies will lead the country in the right direction?
69% said yes.
26% said no.

Are Trump’s proposed priorities on track?
63% said yes.
36% said no.

Are Trump's economic ideas on the right track?
72% said yes.
27% said no.

Are Trump’s proposals to combat terrorism on the right track?
70% said yes.
29% said no.

On the subject of immigration, 62% believed Trump’s proposals were on the right track. And 64% agreed with Trump’s proposed tax policies.

CNN/ORC poll: 7-in-10 speech-watchers say Trump boosted optimism

Van Jones wrote:
There are a lot of people, who have a lot of reason to be frustrated with him, to be fearful of him, to be mad at him. But that is one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics. Period.

And he did something extraordinary. And for people who have been hoping that he would become unifying, hoping that he might find some way to become presidential, they should be happy with that moment.

For people who have been hoping that maybe he would remain a divisive cartoon, which he often finds a way to do, they should begin to become a little worried tonight. Because that thing you just saw him do – if he finds a way to do that over and over again, he’s gonna be there for eight years.

Now there is a lot that he said in that speech that was counterfactual, that was not right that I oppose, and will oppose. But he did something tonight that you cannot take away from him – he became president of the United States.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Not sure if he is or not, but 78% of Americans sure are.  
Time to get out of the protest line and get with the program, Democrats.  It's no more "politics as usual".

Ben wrote:
You cheer for a president who has been compromised by a hostile foreign power.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

According to a report by the Washington Post, Christopher Steele entered into an arrangement with the FBI to be paid to continue his work on collecting information regarding the alleged ties between Donald Trump and Russia.

Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the now-infamous dossier that alleged the Russian government was attempting to compromise Trump, and that they had been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” him for years. Steele had compiled the dossier while working for a firm that had been hired to compile opposition research on Trump ahead of the election.

With Election Day approaching, Steele was due to stop being paid by the firm, but he felt the work was too important to discontinue. That is when he entered into an agreement with the FBI. However, he would end up not being paid by the agency.

Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy were interrupted as Steele’s now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Speaker Paul Ryan got a question after his meeting with President Trump today about calls for a special prosecutor into Russian election interference — spurred on by the comments of one Republican lawmaker.

Ryan said he “can’t speak to” whether Jeff Sessions should recuse himself, and he said the proper place right now for this investigation is the congressional intelligence committees.

“We know Russia meddled in the election,” Ryan said, “No one is disputing that. And this last government gave us that information in the first place. No one is alleging that some American was in on it beforehand.”

Ben's 1st link wrote:
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions...

Ben's 2nd link wrote:
Christopher Steele entered into an arrangement with...

Ben's 3rd Link wrote:
No one is alleging that some American was in on it beforehand.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben's 1st link wrote:
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions...

And?  What were the findings of this "examination"?
The FBI investigated Hillary, and concluded no criminal charges should be pursued.  That was an investigation.
You're hinging your belief on an "examination"?  Ok.

Ben's 2nd link wrote:
Christopher Steele entered into an arrangement with...

Ben's 3rd Link wrote:
No one is alleging that some American was in on it beforehand.

Ben wrote:
Christopher Steele is the retired M16 agent who compiled the Russia dossier on Trump...

Ben wrote:
Re-read the entire passage and you'll see that Ryan acknowledges that Russia interfered in our election.

Ben wrote:
The fact that you don't care is tragic.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
Christopher Steele is the retired M16 agent who compiled the Russia dossier on Trump...

Great!  Now we're getting somewhere!  All we need to do, now, is to quote from that dossier where it says that Trump is "a president who has been compromised by a hostile foreign power".

Ben, if you can show that to me, I will turn so anti-Trump that you'll be constantly asking me to tone down my criticisms of him.  Yes, I will be so anti-Trump that you'll start feeling pity for him.

So..... [drumroll, here]
Let's see that quote!

[crickets chirping, here]

Ummmm.... quote please?

Your link wrote:
In Mother Jones' original report, we did not publish the memos drafted by the intelligence official or cite specific details from the documents because the allegations could not be confirmed.

"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified.
...
According to his sources, he says
...
near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.)

Thorin wrote:I am waiting for anyone to show why they think his speech was good and at what points. To show they have reason, or whether they were based off emotions.

For example Military Spending?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I am waiting for anyone to show why they think his speech was good and at what points. To show they have reason, or whether they were based off emotions.

For example Military Spending?

I think the points are too numerous to list where his arguments are flawed, unsubstantiated or false.  What the RW'rs are applauding is that fact that he made it through an hour-long speech without picking a fight, insulting someone or otherwise making a fool out of himself.

The substance of his speech is lacking details, or pablum Republicanism or just cheer leading.  The sighs of relief that you hear are for not grabbing a pussy or mocking a disabled person.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I am waiting for anyone to show why they think his speech was good and at what points. To show they have reason, or whether they were based off emotions.

For example Military Spending?

I think the points are too numerous to list where his arguments are flawed, unsubstantiated or false.  What the RW'rs are applauding is that fact that he made it through an hour-long speech without picking a fight, insulting someone or otherwise making a fool out of himself.

The substance of his speech is lacking details, or pablum Republicanism or just cheer leading.  The sighs of relief that you hear are for not grabbing a pussy or mocking a disabled person.

Interesting Quill, but to me I would rather someone would attempt to back up his statements with reasoned evidence. I responded to a claim on another thread, where it was claimed, they were spot on.
Clearly basing this off opinion and the polls for the speech.
I want to know are any of the these policies practical and what implications they are going to have? Even more so on a global effect.
Like I said, why the vast increase in Military spending?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified.
...
According to his sources, he says
...
near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.)

All of this is the work of one man.  A man about to sell a book.
His dossier was not commissioned. He has no sources.  Everything is based on what he, and he alone, is saying.  Where is the corroborative evidence?  Why is he the only person that seems to know anything about this?

Like I said.  This story is as empty as a DNC rally.  All fluff and nothing can be confirmed.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
Christopher Steele is the retired M16 agent who compiled the Russia dossier on Trump...

Great!  Now we're getting somewhere!  All we need to do, now, is to quote from that dossier where it says that Trump is "a president who has been compromised by a hostile foreign power".

Ben, if you can show that to me, I will turn so anti-Trump that you'll be constantly asking me to tone down my criticisms of him.  Yes, I will be so anti-Trump that you'll start feeling pity for him.

So..... [drumroll, here]
Let's see that quote!

[crickets chirping, here]

Ummmm.... quote please?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
Christopher Steele is the retired M16 agent who compiled the Russia dossier on Trump...

Great!  Now we're getting somewhere!  All we need to do, now, is to quote from that dossier where it says that Trump is "a president who has been compromised by a hostile foreign power".

Ben, if you can show that to me, I will turn so anti-Trump that you'll be constantly asking me to tone down my criticisms of him.  Yes, I will be so anti-Trump that you'll start feeling pity for him.

So..... [drumroll, here]
Let's see that quote!

[crickets chirping, here]

Ummmm.... quote please?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:@Ben

Seems that your link came to the same conclusion I did:

Your link wrote:
In Mother Jones' original report, we did not publish the memos drafted by the intelligence official or cite specific details from the documents because the allegations could not be confirmed.

Those are some pretty damaging accusations.  To peddle unconfirmed news with anonymous sources is gossip.
But, I suppose some people will allow themselves to believe anything that fits their narrative.  I'm no such "emotional thinker".  Show me the facts.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Much as I dislike Trump the man...and if that isn't evident by now then everyone here is asleep...I must say that I have to applaud the manner and obvious sincerity of his tribute to that US Navy SEAL.

Without going into too much detail - far too dangerous in the social media - I have the honour of fulfilling a particular role in the UK's leading charity for the support of military veterans, from WW1 (not that any are alive now),through WW2 and right up until the present day covering conflicts including Korea, the Balkans, the Falklands and the Middle East.

I would love to see one of our leading politicians, of any party, emulate such a ringing and moving expression of commitment and support to our own brave service personnel who have been sent by politicians to fight and die  for the protection of United Kingdom citizens and our national interests.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Much as I dislike Trump the man...and if that isn't evident by now then everyone here is asleep...I must say that I have to applaud the manner and obvious sincerity of his tribute to that US Navy SEAL.

Without going into too much detail - far too dangerous in the social media - I have the honour of fulfilling a particular role in the UK's leading charity for the support of military veterans, from WW1 (not that any are alive now),through WW2 and right up until the present day covering conflicts including Korea, the Balkans, the Falklands and the Middle East.

I would love to see one of our leading politicians, of any party, emulate such a ringing and moving expression of commitment and support to our own brave service personnel who have been sent by politicians to fight and die  for the protection of United Kingdom citizens and our national interests.

It would have been bizarre had he not paid tribute to Ryan Owens, but I can't help thinking he shouldn't have gotten Owens killed in the first place -- particularly since the U.S. got nothing of value from the raid. Trump just tossed that fine man's life into the trash.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Much as I dislike Trump the man...and if that isn't evident by now then everyone here is asleep...I must say that I have to applaud the manner and obvious sincerity of his tribute to that US Navy SEAL.

Without going into too much detail - far too dangerous in the social media - I have the honour of fulfilling a particular role in the UK's leading charity for the support of military veterans, from WW1 (not that any are alive now),through WW2 and right up until the present day covering conflicts including Korea, the Balkans, the Falklands and the Middle East.

I would love to see one of our leading politicians, of any party, emulate such a ringing and moving expression of commitment and support to our own brave service personnel who have been sent by politicians to fight and die  for the protection of United Kingdom citizens and our national interests.

It would have been bizarre had he not paid tribute to Ryan Owens, but I can't help thinking he shouldn't have gotten Owens killed in the first place -- particularly since the U.S. got nothing of value from the raid. Trump just tossed that fine man's life into the trash.

Ben, politicians have always done that. If there's one truisim that deserves the title, it is that politicians make wars; young soldiers die in them.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ben, politicians have always done that. If there's one truisim that deserves the title, it is that politicians make wars; young soldiers die in them.

So ... does that make it acceptable?

Ben wrote:
...then the Clinton campaign payed him to keep it up.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
He was commissioned by Republicans, originally, then the Clinton campaign payed him to keep it up. Interestingly enough, instead of reporting back to the campaign, he reported directly to the FBI, which is currently investigating Trump and his ties to Russia.

He's a legendary former MI6 spy, not some blowhard. He fled into hiding with his family after the dossier made news.

If you're having trouble understanding the importance of this -- of which George W. Bush said, "I think we all need answers" -- try this out:

"Trump may be compromised by Russia."

"Trump Obama may be compromised by Russia Iran."

Ahhhh... commissioned by Trump's campaign adversary.  Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?  That totally makes everything all that much more believable, now!


Let me know what becomes of those conspiracy theories, Ben.  I personally think we'll find more truth in the tale of Bigfoot than we will from some guy hired by the Clintons.  I know, I know, it sounds crazy, huh?

Ben wrote:
If you don't stop deceptively editing my posts when you quote them...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ahhhh... commissioned by Trump's campaign adversary.  Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?  That totally makes everything all that much more believable, now!


Let me know what becomes of those conspiracy theories, Ben.  I personally think we'll find more truth in the tale of Bigfoot than we will from some guy hired by the Clintons.  I know, I know, it sounds crazy, huh?

If you don't stop deceptively editing my posts when you quote them, I'm putting you in the basement. This is your only warning.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
If you don't stop deceptively editing my posts when you quote them...

Deceptively quote?  Yes, I understand that you enjoy quoting an entire post when you quote someone, while I only quote the parts relevant to my response.  The ellipses ("...") before the sentence clearly indicates that it is but a portion of the sentence I'm quoting.  I think you're allowing your anger to inadvertently insult the intelligence of the readers, here.  I'm sure they know what ellipses indicate, they also know that all they have to do is scroll up the page to find the entire quote, and they also know that there is an enormous conflict of interest with the "evidence" you're submitting when the "evidence" was accrued by someone on the Clinton campaign's payroll.

Like I said, lemme know how that conspiracy theory works out for ya'.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ahhhh... commissioned by Trump's campaign adversary.  Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?  That totally makes everything all that much more believable, now!


Let me know what becomes of those conspiracy theories, Ben.  I personally think we'll find more truth in the tale of Bigfoot than we will from some guy hired by the Clintons.  I know, I know, it sounds crazy, huh?

If you don't stop deceptively editing my posts when you quote them, I'm putting you in the basement. This is your only warning.

That seems a tad harsh Ben

I crop out some parts of previous posts when replying. As do others, as they take up lots of space when replying.

Independent is trying to wind you up.

Don;t allow Independent to get to you, as you are far better equipped to reason in your replies

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That seems a tad harsh Ben

I crop out some parts of previous posts when replying. As do others, as they take up lots of space when replying.

Y'all don't do it to try to change what I said, though ...

Independent is trying to wind you up.

There it is

Don;t allow Independent to get to you, as you are far better equipped to reason in your replies

I'm glad you see it that way. I am actually surprised he's pulled out so few memes so far in this discussion. I expect him to resort to that pretty soon, though.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That seems a tad harsh Ben

I crop out some parts of previous posts when replying. As do others, as they take up lots of space when replying.

Y'all don't do it to try to change what I said, though ...

Independent is trying to wind you up.

There it is

Don;t allow Independent to get to you, as you are far better equipped to reason in your replies

I'm glad you see it that way. I am actually surprised he's pulled out so few memes so far in this discussion. I expect him to resort to that pretty soon, though.

Independent is trying to misdirect you, which ends up diminishing his/her own argument.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Independent is trying to misdirect you, which ends up diminishing his/her own argument.

We're not exactly dealing with Gen. George Patton here

Ben wrote:
You deceptively edited my post to make it seem that it had been Clinton who hired esteemed former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to look into Trump's ties with Russia.

NBC wrote:
The deal for the former operative, Christopher Steele, to continue his work on behalf of the FBI fell apart when Steele pulled out, said the source, who has direct knowledge of the situation.
...
Steele first turned over information to the FBI in July, the source said, but heard little interest from the bureau. The FBI circled back in September, the source said, appearing to have renewed interest amid new hacks and leaks.

But Steele backed out of the deal before it was consummated, the source said.

eddie wrote:I was just reading about that:

The prolonged standing ovation that Fake President Trump led on Tuesday for the widow of a fallen US commando was an effective bit of political theater. It also masked the lingering controversy over the botched raid in Yemen that took the life of Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, which has injected a grieving family into a raging political debate about whether the White House erred in signing off on the mission.

Near the end of his high-profile speech to Congress Tuesday, Trump paused to pay tribute to Owens’s widow, Carryn Owens, who was sitting next to the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump.

“Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero — battling against terrorism and securing our nation,” Trump said as Carryn Owens began to cry. “I just spoke to Gen. Mattis, who reconfirmed that, and I quote, ‘Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.’"

It was one of the only lines in Trump’s speech that brought lawmakers from both parties to their feet. It was also, at best, a debatable assessment of the mission that took Owens’s life.

Owens, a member of the military’s elite SEAL Team 6, was killed in late January after his unit came under intense fire during an assault on a fortified terrorist compound in Yemen. The Pentagon said the SEALs killed at least 14 militants from al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate, but also acknowledged that at least 25 civilians — including the 8-year-old daughter of a militant who had been killed by a US drone years earlier — were killed in the fighting.

The deaths, and the fact that the SEALs didn’t kill or capture the al-Qaeda leaders they were targeting, prompted immediate questions about why Trump had greenlit the operation, and about whether the intelligence gathered at the scene was worth the high human and financial cost (a $70 million US aircraft was also destroyed during the mission).

Owens’s father, Bill, refused to meet with Trump after his son’s body was brought back to the US because of his anger over the raid, which marked a rare use of American ground forces inside Yemen.

“I’m sorry, I don’t want to see him,” Owens told a military chaplain at Dover Air Force Base, according to a report by the Miami Herald. “I told them I didn’t want to make a scene about it, but my conscience wouldn’t let me talk to him.”

The Pentagon has insisted that the raid produced “actionable intelligence,” but offered no details to substantiate the claim. That assessment isn’t universally shared: NBC News reported Tuesday that the raid had “so far yielded no significant intelligence.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/28/14773716/trump-fallen-navy-seal-owens-carryn-widow-yemen-raid-speech-congress

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
You deceptively edited my post to make it seem that it had been Clinton who hired esteemed former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to look into Trump's ties with Russia.

Awww, cut the bullcrap.
Nowhere did I imply or infer any such thing.  You're simply venting your anger and lashing out because I'm pointing out your conspiracy theory for the utter nonsense that it is.  The guy even backed out of selling the dossier to the FBI, most likely because he had time to consider the consequences of relaying false information.

Published by MSNBC, today:

MSNBC wrote:
The deal for the former operative, Christopher Steele, to continue his work on behalf of the FBI fell apart when Steele pulled out, said the source, who has direct knowledge of the situation.
...
Steele first turned over information to the FBI in July, the source said, but heard little interest from the bureau. The FBI circled back in September, the source said, appearing to have renewed interest amid new hacks and leaks.

But Steele backed out of the deal before it was consummated, the source said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-made-deal-ex-spy-trump-dossier-n727061

Hmmm... he doesn't seem to be a stand-up guy, to me.  If he backed out of the deal, he obviously wan't willing to back his own work.

Yeah, go ahead and get angry with my quote of MSNBC, too.

Ex-KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin — believed to have assisted former British spy, Christopher Steele, with a lurid dossier alleging explicit acts by Fake President Trump — was found dead in his black Lexus on December 29.

Erovinkin had been close to Igor Sechin, a former deputy prime minister and now head of State-owned oil company, Rosneft, and had acted as a key liaison between Sechin and Putin.

Although validity of the contents of that dossier have been called into serious question, Erovinkin’s alleged involvement in compiling the information makes his death dubious by nature. An investigation is ongoing.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Trump honored Ryan and Carryn Owens.  From what I saw, Trump was very sincere, humble, respectful, and commending of Ryan, his wife, and they sacrifices their family has made.  Just look at how others within this thread have positively commented on it.  

I don't think anyone is trying to politicize this except the Democrats.  Ironically enough, they were also the only party to sit, not clap, and not acknowledge one of our fallen heroes.  Politics first, huh Liberals?

Ben wrote:
Trump ordered Owens into deadly action...

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
Trump ordered Owens into deadly action...

Oooooohhhhhh.... you really don't want to start down that path.  Especially if you're an Obama supporter.
Obama, the only US president in history to be at war, every single day of both of his terms.  

That's why I like Trump's stance on the matter:  Win or don't fight.

POTUS keeps talking about how "that guy's widow" made him look good. He was gonna send her family a case of Trump steaks. I'm not kidding.

— White House staffer (@AngryWHStaffer) March 1, 2017

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:
Trump ordered Owens into deadly action...

Oooooohhhhhh.... you really don't want to start down that path.  Especially if you're an Obama supporter.
Obama, the only US president in history to be at war, every single day of both of his terms.  

That's why I like Trump's stance on the matter:  Win or don't fight.