Poll shows most Americans viewed Trump's Congressional address positively

First topic message reminder :

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

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

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.

What did I tell you about deceptively cherry-picking my quotes? Have fun in the basement

Oh, come on, Ben...that sort of thing happens in forums all the time. The rest of us are not so stupid that we cannot understand what you have written and really mean.

Once I had the sentence "...I detest all the British National Party stands for..." deliberately edited and re-posted to read "...I support all the British National Party stands for..." and then quoted time and time again in subsequent threads. It was not in this forum, I hasten to add!

I frequently have some of my posts deliberately cherry picked and misinterpreted so they can be used to imply exactly the opposite of what I have said.

I have had words and sentiments falsely attributed to me and only recently a phrase deliberately and outrageously taken out of context by one poster to give him an excuse to refer to me as a racist.

Like me you've come up through the ranks in a tough and sometimes dirty profession, and I can't really think that a thin skin is one of your characteristics.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

What did I tell you about deceptively cherry-picking my quotes? Have fun in the basement

Oh, come on, Ben...that sort of thing happens in forums all the time. The rest of us are not so stupid that we cannot understand what you have written and really mean.

Once I had the sentence "...I detest all the British National Party stands for..." deliberately edited and re-posted to read "...I support all the British National Party stands for..." and then quoted time and time again in subsequent threads. It was not in this forum, I hasten to add!

I frequently have some of my posts deliberately cherry picked and misinterpreted so they can be used to imply exactly the opposite of what I have said.

I have had words and sentiments falsely attributed to me and only recently a phrase deliberately and outrageously taken out of context by one poster to give him an excuse to refer to me as a racist.

Like me you've come up through the ranks in a tough and sometimes dirty profession, and I can't really think that a thin skin is one of your characteristics.  

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I said the view you made was racist and you were not racist per say.
The fact you could not counter this and were more upset because I was critical of what you said, speaks volumes. That shows that you cannot take criticism. From the very beginning I said, that its bordering on racism and if you had said the same of the present Maltese EU President based on the size of the country. Again the public would find such a comment discriminating and prejudice.
You certainly do not have thick skin, when you also react and carried it over into another thread even yesterday.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

What did I tell you about deceptively cherry-picking my quotes? Have fun in the basement

Oh, come on, Ben...that sort of thing happens in forums all the time. The rest of us are not so stupid that we cannot understand what you have written and really mean.

Once I had the sentence "...I detest all the British National Party stands for..." deliberately edited and re-posted to read "...I support all the British National Party stands for..." and then quoted time and time again in subsequent threads. It was not in this forum, I hasten to add!

I frequently have some of my posts deliberately cherry picked and misinterpreted so they can be used to imply exactly the opposite of what I have said.

I have had words and sentiments falsely attributed to me and only recently a phrase deliberately and outrageously taken out of context by one poster to give him an excuse to refer to me as a racist.

Like me you've come up through the ranks in a tough and sometimes dirty profession, and I can't really think that a thin skin is one of your characteristics.  

Dishonesty is something we try to avoid here, Fred. What happened to you on other forums says more about them, than what is considered acceptable here.

And don't confuse altering posts with "misinterpretation". One is lying, the other is arguing interpretation. We can argue by interpretation, because it can be contradicted. Altering posts is falsifying truth.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Oh, come on, Ben...that sort of thing happens in forums all the time. The rest of us are not so stupid that we cannot understand what you have written and really mean.

Once I had the sentence "...I detest all the British National Party stands for..." deliberately edited and re-posted to read "...I support all the British National Party stands for..." and then quoted time and time again in subsequent threads. It was not in this forum, I hasten to add!

I frequently have some of my posts deliberately cherry picked and misinterpreted so they can be used to imply exactly the opposite of what I have said.

I have had words and sentiments falsely attributed to me and only recently a phrase deliberately and outrageously taken out of context by one poster to give him an excuse to refer to me as a racist.

Like me you've come up through the ranks in a tough and sometimes dirty profession, and I can't really think that a thin skin is one of your characteristics.  

Dishonesty is something we try to avoid here, Fred.  What happened to you on other forums says more about them, than what is considered acceptable here.  

And don't confuse altering posts with "misinterpretation".  One is lying, the other is arguing interpretation.  We can argue by interpretation, because it can be contradicted.  Altering posts is falsifying truth.

D'accord. What I should have written was "deliberate misinterpretation"...though I was trying not to be too confrontational; a bit like describing lying as "...being somewhat economical with the truth."

I also agree with your strictures on protocols pursued on other forums...for the record it was, I believe, ADO.

And as a lawyer, you will no doubt agree that were real names used instead of pseudonyms, altering a post in that way would, without a doubt, have been actionable.

My main point still stands, though; I personally think Ben has been a tad harsh with LIT.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Dishonesty is something we try to avoid here, Fred.  What happened to you on other forums says more about them, than what is considered acceptable here.  

And don't confuse altering posts with "misinterpretation".  One is lying, the other is arguing interpretation.  We can argue by interpretation, because it can be contradicted.  Altering posts is falsifying truth.

D'accord. What I should have written was "deliberate misinterpretation"...though I was trying not to be too confrontational; a bit like describing lying as "...being somewhat economical with the truth."

I also agree with your strictures on protocols pursued on other forums...for the record it was, I believe, ADO.

And as a lawyer, you will no doubt agree that were real names used instead of pseudonyms, altering a post in that way would, without a doubt, have been actionable.

My main point still stands, though; I personally think Ben has been a tad harsh with LIT.

Again and you are whining like a child.
You made comments about the ability of the EU president based on from him coming from a Mickey Mouse state. As if this should deny him the ability to govern. That is prejudice and discrimination and like I said borders on racism. Now I could of gladly taken this as you saying this inadvertently and not intentionally, but you then took outrage as if your reputation and honour was on the line. It showed you could not even conceive that it could easily have been taken for bordering on racism. You went straight into defense mode and then defended what you said. As if you cannot be wrong or said something inadvertently prejudiced.

That shows and proves you were led emotively on the issue and failed to even for one second conceive what you said came across poorly. Like I said, you took a massive issue to this. There was nothing deliberate or misinterpreting, but the fact it was certainly prejudiced and based off where he came from. Someone not emotive would have seen it could easily come across very prejudiced on an already supercharged debate.

The fact you were antsy yesterday, when I reasoned again another poor claim you made and you evade my points again here, is showing glowingly a lack of maturity on your part.

But, if you want to act that way and cannot take criticism, then so be it.
I suggest you learn to move on

Ben Reilly wrote:

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".

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

you cheered for a president that spied on numerous foreign heads of state who are supposed to be allies. those are backed up by facts, the whole russian issue is all conjecture as there has been no evidence offered up to support it.

How is trump being wiretapped that different from nixon breaking into the watergate.
It is inconceivable that obama would not have been informed that the CIA/FBI were going to wire tap a presidential candidate.

the democrats have been deeplyy involved with the russians ove rhte years. there is even a video clip of obama telling the russian PM to wait until after the election when he will have more wriggle room on nukes, I beleive. Isn't that collusion?

Phil Shiner 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.

so you are suggesting the poll results are only from trump supporters?

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.

and what did the leftists in america do after that tribute. they attacked the widow and accused her of being a prop, a fool and self serving.

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.

the raid was planned under the obama administration and held back for the first new moon which happened to be after the inauguration.

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.

great move bir dakika bey

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

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'.

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. My post contained the truth, that it was the Republican Party that hired him originally. Do that again and I will basement you, not out of anger but because your actions are counterproductive to debate, and this is a debate site.

As far as how "my conspiracy theory" works out, I imagine the FBI will be letting us all know, as it is actively investigating "my conspiracy theory."

are you in the students union?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/07/student-union-bans-conservative-society-speaking-challenged/

how does banning someone further debate.

\"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 the sacrifices that their family have 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. Therefore, it was the Democrats that politicized an honorary event. Politics first, huh Liberals?

I remember obama honouring people as well, mainly gang bangers and crooks.,

Ben Reilly wrote:

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?

Trump ordered Owens into deadly action practically with a casual wave of the hand as he had dinner, then tried to blame it all on Obama.

You keep supporting this cretin and you're going to have to run from your own party again, "Independent" Thoughts My advice -- just be a conservative, stick to your principles instead of obsessing over the score, and jump out of Trump's ass before it's too late.

the raid was planned under obama's watch and set for the first new moon which turned out to be after the inauguration. Had clinton won she would have been the one ignoring the sacrifice of that seal.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

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.

What did I tell you about deceptively cherry-picking my quotes? Have fun in the basement

so we have to post all the long winded responses to make a point about a single sentence. Are we allowed to highlight the specific sentence we are responding to, or will that earn a ban as well.

Ben Reilly wrote:

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

got a name for that.

I heard a clinton staffer said they were in cahoots with putin.

Phil Shiner][quote="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.

Meh, that's a phoney dodge, like most of your stuff IT.  The reality is, that while there were training soldiers remaining in Iraq, Obama kept the US out of war.  He did so by successfully manipulating Congress, warding them away from hostile action (Republicans, ordinarily war-mongers, are also racists and didn't want the black CIC to get credit).

Frankly--I'll be the first to say it--I thought Carrie Owen's show was fake.



There she was, flanked by the Trump operatives, coaxing her, looking up at the rafters to avoid looking at the camera.  To say her act was over-the-top would be understatement.  There's no animation, its a still shot...she was evading scrutiny by pretending to pray (they say the look in the eyes will tell the truth).  She didn't want to be there!  

Trump is allied with the Russians, and the Russians are a RICO-style political organization, so I'm wondering what they used to make her pose so unconvincingly: the carrot or the stick?  Was she threatened should she not cooperate, with pension problems, or worse...or was she simply paid off?

In any event, the Owens father was the one who showed dignity.  And his position reflected the real question here: why was the Master Chief sacrificed to a cheap political stunt??  The Obama administration had refused to sign-off on the mission, saying it had no yield and was too dangerous.  And indeed, it yielded nothing...unless you count a dead Seal and more murdered babies.  The real story is how insignificant--in the total picture--Trump feels the Owens family is, that he would allow an American, their son, to be placed in harm's way for theatrical effect.  Disgusting.[/quote]the us has been bombing country's every week since he started. dont the airforcce or navy count in your view phil.

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Oh, come on, Ben...that sort of thing happens in forums all the time. The rest of us are not so stupid that we cannot understand what you have written and really mean.

Once I had the sentence "...I detest all the British National Party stands for..." deliberately edited and re-posted to read "...I support all the British National Party stands for..." and then quoted time and time again in subsequent threads. It was not in this forum, I hasten to add!

I frequently have some of my posts deliberately cherry picked and misinterpreted so they can be used to imply exactly the opposite of what I have said.

I have had words and sentiments falsely attributed to me and only recently a phrase deliberately and outrageously taken out of context by one poster to give him an excuse to refer to me as a racist.

Like me you've come up through the ranks in a tough and sometimes dirty profession, and I can't really think that a thin skin is one of your characteristics.  

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I said the view you made was racist and you were not racist per say.
The fact you could not counter this and were more upset because I was critical of what you said, speaks volumes. That shows that you cannot take criticism. From the very beginning I said, that its bordering on racism and if you had said the same of the present Maltese EU President based on the size of the country. Again the public would find such a comment discriminating and prejudice.
You certainly do not have thick skin, when you also react and carried it over into another thread even yesterday.

odd how you are so vain that you think he is talking about you.
OF course I can understand why you would as you have been known to alter posts.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I said the view you made was racist and you were not racist per say.
The fact you could not counter this and were more upset because I was critical of what you said, speaks volumes. That shows that you cannot take criticism. From the very beginning I said, that its bordering on racism and if you had said the same of the present Maltese EU President based on the size of the country. Again the public would find such a comment discriminating and prejudice.
You certainly do not have thick skin, when you also react and carried it over into another thread even yesterday.

odd how you are so vain that you think he is talking about you.
OF course I can understand why you would as you have been known to alter posts.

Misdirection.
Look, Fred knew he made a poor, if unintended racist or inadvertantly racist point.
It still was racist
So now you are claiming I can alter his own posts on his posts?
That would be a neat trick, even you or the admin team cannot do that on both sites.
I can only alter posts that I reply onto and either alter then that post within my posts.

So I have to laugh, that has to be the funniest and most pathetic defense over his poor view and racist point.

Even funnier when you do the same with Quill's user name yourself.

I have never or could ever be able alter the original post of anyone here.

Care to back up your claim on this or are you going to continually have me have you barking like a dog at me?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
odd how you are so vain that you think he is talking about you.
OF course I can understand why you would as you have been known to alter posts.

Misdirection.
Look, Fred knew he made a poor, if unintended racist or inadvertantly racist point.
It still was racist
So now you are claiming I can alter his own posts on his posts?
That would be a neat trick, even you or the admin team cannot do that on both sites.
I can only alter posts that I reply onto and either alter then that post within my posts.

So I have to laugh, that has to be the funniest and most pathetic defense over his poor view and racist point.

Even funnier when you do the same with Quill's user name yourself.

I have never or could ever be able alter the original post of anyone here.

Care to back up your claim on this or are you going to continually have me have you barking like a dog at me?

I am not claiming anything of the sort, I am saying you are so vain you think everyone is talking about you.

I think carly simon wrote a song about you.
He was quite clearly referring to scrats scurrilous endless claims repeated ad nauseum since the ADO days.

you obviously have some guilty conscience about having altered replies when quoting people. you don't need to be an admin to do that.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Misdirection.
Look, Fred knew he made a poor, if unintended racist or inadvertantly racist point.
It still was racist
So now you are claiming I can alter his own posts on his posts?
That would be a neat trick, even you or the admin team cannot do that on both sites.
I can only alter posts that I reply onto and either alter then that post within my posts.

So I have to laugh, that has to be the funniest and most pathetic defense over his poor view and racist point.

Even funnier when you do the same with Quill's user name yourself.

I have never or could ever be able alter the original post of anyone here.

Care to back up your claim on this or are you going to continually have me have you barking like a dog at me?

I am not claiming anything of the sort, I am saying you are so vain you think everyone is talking about you.

I think carly simon wrote a song about you.
He was quite clearly referring to scrats scurrilous endless claims repeated ad nauseum since the ADO days.

you obviously have some guilty conscience about having altered replies when quoting people. you don't need to be an admin to do that.

Oh and I am vain darling, because I know it bothers you.  

So you could not back up your claim.

Is that your diagnoses on altering posts in replies?

Is it possible its done to wind people up, because I know they easily bite?

So good it seems, you do the same

So if you do the same and claim me to be insecure, then surely you would be insecure also?

So funny when you end up contradicting himself as you just did

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Phil Shiner wrote:

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.

so you are suggesting the poll results are only from trump supporters?

Exhibit number one to "The Dumbwit You Know" looking rather foolish

As he alters Quills name when he replies to his posts

Guess He is insecure by his own diagnoses.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I am not claiming anything of the sort, I am saying you are so vain you think everyone is talking about you.

I think carly simon wrote a song about you.
He was quite clearly referring to scrats scurrilous endless claims repeated ad nauseum since the ADO days.

you obviously have some guilty conscience about having altered replies when quoting people. you don't need to be an admin to do that.

Oh and I am vain darling, because I know it bothers you.  

So you could not back up your claim.

Is that your diagnoses on altering posts in replies?

Is it possible its done to wind people up, because I know they easily bite?

So good it seems, you do the same

So if you do the same and claim me to be insecure, then surely you would be insecure also?

So funny when you end up contradicting himself as you just did

I have made my point perfectly well.
you jumped on LEM's post thinking he was talking about you when he was not.
the only reason you would have done so was because you had at some point altered one of his posts in your reply to him to say something other that what he wrote.

so you in fact outed yourself as a person who happily alters peoples posts when you quote them.

Talk about own goal.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
so you are suggesting the poll results are only from trump supporters?

Exhibit number one to "The Dumbwit You Know" looking rather foolish

As he alters Quills name when he replies to his posts

Guess He is insecure by his own diagnoses.

I alter his name as he insists on doing it to mine despite having been told not to do so by the admin of this site.

You do understand the reference to phil shiner dont you?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Oh and I am vain darling, because I know it bothers you.  

So you could not back up your claim.

Is that your diagnoses on altering posts in replies?

Is it possible its done to wind people up, because I know they easily bite?

So good it seems, you do the same

So if you do the same and claim me to be insecure, then surely you would be insecure also?

So funny when you end up contradicting himself as you just did

I have made my point perfectly well.
you jumped on LEM's post thinking he was talking about you when he was not.
the only reason you would have done so was because you had at some point altered one of his posts in your reply to him to say something other that what he wrote.

so you in fact outed yourself as a person who happily alters peoples posts when you quote them.

Talk about own goal.

I never claimed he was talking about me
I never altered his post because I cannot alter his post
He made a really rather inadvertently racist point and he knows this.
Now if you are talking about piss poor compared to Tin Pot/Mickey Mouse, what difference does that make?
Are they all not not demeaning to that Country?

So you made an accusation, I never did, so show where I altered his posts in his own posts and then prove to me what difference there is in the above poor racist comment he made?

In your own time hun?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Exhibit number one to "The Dumbwit You Know" looking rather foolish

As he alters Quills name when he replies to his posts

Guess He is insecure by his own diagnoses.

I alter his name as he insists on doing it to mine despite having been told not to do so by the admin of this site.

You do understand the reference to phil shiner dont you?

So you are insecure then

ha ha ha ha ha ha