It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
There are multiple reasons why his polling is going down. I never said it was only one thing. I said weeks ago, before the laptop was recognized as legit by the NYT, his polling numbers would go down due to high gas prices and inflation.
If his numbers tick up again, I'm sure you will rub them in my face. You can do that and I won't call them fake like you call the polls I reference as being insignificant.
Why would I rub them in your face? I didn't call this Reuters poll fake, did I? I did call the nonsense you posted from Trump's donor's company meaningless...because they are.
Just go off of 538 to get an overall idea of how the approval numbers are looking as opposed to cherry picking a random one just because it suits your agenda. His numbers are not good right now. Everyone knows that. lol
You didn't call it fake but I would lean more towards insignificant.
Honestly, I hope his numbers do go up.
No, I said it is better to look at the average instead of cherry picking a poll or two and then coming on here and gloating. It's not a good look.
Ok, well you just called me out for that but you ignored that Germ Blansten did it. Germ gave us 1 poll that showed Biden would win the election. I linked to multiple polls that showed Trump would win.
It's not a good look to throw rocks from your glass house.
Biden lead Trump in all head to head polling for two years leading up to the 2020 election (this like 6 months worth 3 years out). So it was not a shock to those not in a cult that Trump lost. Again--the people who voted for Biden are not in a cult. We do not fly Biden flags and wear Biden shirts and hats like Trump supporters still do. We recognize that Biden's numbers are not good. It is likely that the republicans will win back the house this year and if Biden runs again, I don't think anyone here thinks he will waltz to re-election like most Trump supporters did for four years while they called all bad polling for their guy "fake news."
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
There are multiple reasons why his polling is going down. I never said it was only one thing. I said weeks ago, before the laptop was recognized as legit by the NYT, his polling numbers would go down due to high gas prices and inflation.
If his numbers tick up again, I'm sure you will rub them in my face. You can do that and I won't call them fake like you call the polls I reference as being insignificant.
Why would I rub them in your face? I didn't call this Reuters poll fake, did I? I did call the nonsense you posted from Trump's donor's company meaningless...because they are.
Just go off of 538 to get an overall idea of how the approval numbers are looking as opposed to cherry picking a random one just because it suits your agenda. His numbers are not good right now. Everyone knows that. lol
You didn't call it fake but I would lean more towards insignificant.
Honestly, I hope his numbers do go up.
No, I said it is better to look at the average instead of cherry picking a poll or two and then coming on here and gloating. It's not a good look.
Ok, well you just called me out for that but you ignored that Germ Blansten did it. Germ gave us 1 poll that showed Biden would win the election. I linked to multiple polls that showed Trump would win.
It's not a good look to throw rocks from your glass house.
Biden lead Trump in all head to head polling for two years leading up to the 2020 election (this like 6 months worth 3 years out). So it was not a shock to those not in a cult that Trump lost. Again--the people who voted for Biden are not in a cult. We do not fly Biden flags and wear Biden shirts and hats like Trump supporters still do. We recognize that Biden's numbers are not good. It is likely that the republicans will win back the house this year and if Biden runs again, I don't think anyone here thinks he will waltz to re-election like most Trump supporters did for four years while they called all bad polling for their guy "fake news."
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
In my last post, I was making the point that you correctly accused me of only showing 1 measly poll. Germ did the same exact thing and you jumped on board without calling Germ out for only showing 1 poll. You then attack me by saying it's not a good look but then you wouldn't call out Germ for doing the same thing I did. Was it a good look for Germ when he posted 1 poll? You called it interesting and therefore were agreeing with what Germ did.
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
There are multiple reasons why his polling is going down. I never said it was only one thing. I said weeks ago, before the laptop was recognized as legit by the NYT, his polling numbers would go down due to high gas prices and inflation.
If his numbers tick up again, I'm sure you will rub them in my face. You can do that and I won't call them fake like you call the polls I reference as being insignificant.
Why would I rub them in your face? I didn't call this Reuters poll fake, did I? I did call the nonsense you posted from Trump's donor's company meaningless...because they are.
Just go off of 538 to get an overall idea of how the approval numbers are looking as opposed to cherry picking a random one just because it suits your agenda. His numbers are not good right now. Everyone knows that. lol
You didn't call it fake but I would lean more towards insignificant.
Honestly, I hope his numbers do go up.
No, I said it is better to look at the average instead of cherry picking a poll or two and then coming on here and gloating. It's not a good look.
Ok, well you just called me out for that but you ignored that Germ Blansten did it. Germ gave us 1 poll that showed Biden would win the election. I linked to multiple polls that showed Trump would win.
It's not a good look to throw rocks from your glass house.
Biden lead Trump in all head to head polling for two years leading up to the 2020 election (this like 6 months worth 3 years out). So it was not a shock to those not in a cult that Trump lost. Again--the people who voted for Biden are not in a cult. We do not fly Biden flags and wear Biden shirts and hats like Trump supporters still do. We recognize that Biden's numbers are not good. It is likely that the republicans will win back the house this year and if Biden runs again, I don't think anyone here thinks he will waltz to re-election like most Trump supporters did for four years while they called all bad polling for their guy "fake news."
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
In my last post, I was making the point that you correctly accused me of only showing 1 measly poll. Germ did the same exact thing and you jumped on board without calling Germ out for only showing 1 poll. You then attack me by saying it's not a good look but then you wouldn't call out Germ for doing the same thing I did. Was it a good look for Germ when he posted 1 poll? You called it interesting and therefore were agreeing with what Germ did.
It's Mr Blansten if you're nasty
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
There are multiple reasons why his polling is going down. I never said it was only one thing. I said weeks ago, before the laptop was recognized as legit by the NYT, his polling numbers would go down due to high gas prices and inflation.
If his numbers tick up again, I'm sure you will rub them in my face. You can do that and I won't call them fake like you call the polls I reference as being insignificant.
Why would I rub them in your face? I didn't call this Reuters poll fake, did I? I did call the nonsense you posted from Trump's donor's company meaningless...because they are.
Just go off of 538 to get an overall idea of how the approval numbers are looking as opposed to cherry picking a random one just because it suits your agenda. His numbers are not good right now. Everyone knows that. lol
You didn't call it fake but I would lean more towards insignificant.
Honestly, I hope his numbers do go up.
No, I said it is better to look at the average instead of cherry picking a poll or two and then coming on here and gloating. It's not a good look.
Ok, well you just called me out for that but you ignored that Germ Blansten did it. Germ gave us 1 poll that showed Biden would win the election. I linked to multiple polls that showed Trump would win.
It's not a good look to throw rocks from your glass house.
Biden lead Trump in all head to head polling for two years leading up to the 2020 election (this like 6 months worth 3 years out). So it was not a shock to those not in a cult that Trump lost. Again--the people who voted for Biden are not in a cult. We do not fly Biden flags and wear Biden shirts and hats like Trump supporters still do. We recognize that Biden's numbers are not good. It is likely that the republicans will win back the house this year and if Biden runs again, I don't think anyone here thinks he will waltz to re-election like most Trump supporters did for four years while they called all bad polling for their guy "fake news."
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
In my last post, I was making the point that you correctly accused me of only showing 1 measly poll. Germ did the same exact thing and you jumped on board without calling Germ out for only showing 1 poll. You then attack me by saying it's not a good look but then you wouldn't call out Germ for doing the same thing I did. Was it a good look for Germ when he posted 1 poll? You called it interesting and therefore were agreeing with what Germ did.
It's Mr Blansten if you're nasty
Sorry Mr. Blansten. It won't happen again.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. When looking at the poll you posted, it is clear it is only 1 poll of many. I don't think you were cherry picking a poll that you agreed with and even if you were, it doesn't bother me.
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
There are multiple reasons why his polling is going down. I never said it was only one thing. I said weeks ago, before the laptop was recognized as legit by the NYT, his polling numbers would go down due to high gas prices and inflation.
If his numbers tick up again, I'm sure you will rub them in my face. You can do that and I won't call them fake like you call the polls I reference as being insignificant.
Why would I rub them in your face? I didn't call this Reuters poll fake, did I? I did call the nonsense you posted from Trump's donor's company meaningless...because they are.
Just go off of 538 to get an overall idea of how the approval numbers are looking as opposed to cherry picking a random one just because it suits your agenda. His numbers are not good right now. Everyone knows that. lol
You didn't call it fake but I would lean more towards insignificant.
Honestly, I hope his numbers do go up.
No, I said it is better to look at the average instead of cherry picking a poll or two and then coming on here and gloating. It's not a good look.
Ok, well you just called me out for that but you ignored that Germ Blansten did it. Germ gave us 1 poll that showed Biden would win the election. I linked to multiple polls that showed Trump would win.
It's not a good look to throw rocks from your glass house.
Biden lead Trump in all head to head polling for two years leading up to the 2020 election (this like 6 months worth 3 years out). So it was not a shock to those not in a cult that Trump lost. Again--the people who voted for Biden are not in a cult. We do not fly Biden flags and wear Biden shirts and hats like Trump supporters still do. We recognize that Biden's numbers are not good. It is likely that the republicans will win back the house this year and if Biden runs again, I don't think anyone here thinks he will waltz to re-election like most Trump supporters did for four years while they called all bad polling for their guy "fake news."
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
In my last post, I was making the point that you correctly accused me of only showing 1 measly poll. Germ did the same exact thing and you jumped on board without calling Germ out for only showing 1 poll. You then attack me by saying it's not a good look but then you wouldn't call out Germ for doing the same thing I did. Was it a good look for Germ when he posted 1 poll? You called it interesting and therefore were agreeing with what Germ did.
Wow. You get triggered waaay too easily.
I said it was "interesting" because Biden lead all the head to heads with Trump the last time. So I honestly didn't expect to see him leading any at the moment. That is "interesting" to me. Sorry if that offended you. Germ said he posted it as an example that not all polling for Biden is bad. He said that in his post. Good grief.
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
Biden actually lead Trump in pretty much all head to head poling for the two years leading up the 2020 election. Trump supporters refused to believe those, just like JB appears to not believe this one, and thus refused to believe the actual result.
Where did I say I don't believe it? Do you understand it is to have a reasonable conversation here when you and others say things that aren't true and put words into my mouth?
I didn't say I don't believe it. Those are hypothetical. We don't know if Trump is even running in 2024 let alone that Biden will be competent in 2024. If you want to look at that kind of polling, here are multiple polls showing a different outcome than that one.
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
Biden actually lead Trump in pretty much all head to head poling for the two years leading up the 2020 election. Trump supporters refused to believe those, just like JB appears to not believe this one, and thus refused to believe the actual result.
Where did I say I don't believe it? Do you understand it is to have a reasonable conversation here when you and others say things that aren't true and put words into my mouth?
I didn't say I don't believe it. Those are hypothetical. We don't know if Trump is even running in 2024 let alone that Biden will be competent in 2024. If you want to look at that kind of polling, here are multiple polls showing a different outcome than that one.
trump was never competent. biden is competent just fine.
Trump was competent enough to win an election that no one said he could win.
All by himself? No putin on the ritz assist? Are you kidding me? Where have you been for the past 5-7 years? And he still lost the popular vote. Competence and POOTWH don't belong in the same sentence.
Are you really this vested in POOTWH? Are you really going to vote for him again?
Are you really vested in Biden? Would he have been your first choice? I don't know many people that can say that yet he still won the nomination and then the election.
If Trump is all we have to vote for, then yes, I will vote for him. All I hear is about how many crimes he's broke yet criminal charges aren't appearing. That means that either the people that are trying to go after him are incompetent or he didn't break laws. Either way, if the Democrats are capable of destroying Trump, please do so. Trump is not my first choice and I'd love to see that drama behind us so we can get on with the next person.
Just throwing this out there, but I'm sure you know that lack of criminal convictions for illegal activity isn't really the best gauge for whether someone is guilty of wrongdoing. I know you can figure this out on your own, but several well known criminals were either never charged or never convicted of their most heinous crimes. Trump is like the head of a racketeering enterprise and has always done a good job of keeping himself out of direct contact while those around him go down in flames. I don't need a conviction to confirm what he, and those around him, have already made pretty obvious. The court of public opinion already weighed in, and unfortunately, some have chosen party over country.
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
There are multiple reasons why his polling is going down. I never said it was only one thing. I said weeks ago, before the laptop was recognized as legit by the NYT, his polling numbers would go down due to high gas prices and inflation.
If his numbers tick up again, I'm sure you will rub them in my face. You can do that and I won't call them fake like you call the polls I reference as being insignificant.
Why would I rub them in your face? I didn't call this Reuters poll fake, did I? I did call the nonsense you posted from Trump's donor's company meaningless...because they are.
Just go off of 538 to get an overall idea of how the approval numbers are looking as opposed to cherry picking a random one just because it suits your agenda. His numbers are not good right now. Everyone knows that. lol
You didn't call it fake but I would lean more towards insignificant.
Honestly, I hope his numbers do go up.
No, I said it is better to look at the average instead of cherry picking a poll or two and then coming on here and gloating. It's not a good look.
Ok, well you just called me out for that but you ignored that Germ Blansten did it. Germ gave us 1 poll that showed Biden would win the election. I linked to multiple polls that showed Trump would win.
It's not a good look to throw rocks from your glass house.
Biden lead Trump in all head to head polling for two years leading up to the 2020 election (this like 6 months worth 3 years out). So it was not a shock to those not in a cult that Trump lost. Again--the people who voted for Biden are not in a cult. We do not fly Biden flags and wear Biden shirts and hats like Trump supporters still do. We recognize that Biden's numbers are not good. It is likely that the republicans will win back the house this year and if Biden runs again, I don't think anyone here thinks he will waltz to re-election like most Trump supporters did for four years while they called all bad polling for their guy "fake news."
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
In my last post, I was making the point that you correctly accused me of only showing 1 measly poll. Germ did the same exact thing and you jumped on board without calling Germ out for only showing 1 poll. You then attack me by saying it's not a good look but then you wouldn't call out Germ for doing the same thing I did. Was it a good look for Germ when he posted 1 poll? You called it interesting and therefore were agreeing with what Germ did.
Wow. You get triggered waaay too easily.
I said it was "interesting" because Biden lead all the head to heads with Trump the last time. So I honestly didn't expect to see him leading any at the moment. That is "interesting" to me. Sorry if that offended you. Germ said he posted it as an example that not all polling for Biden is bad. He said that in his post. Good grief.
I'm sorry. Next time I post a link to a single poll, I will make sure to point out the obvious that it is a single poll so you fully understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not offended nor am I triggered over this but if that's what you have to tell yourself to prove your point, go right ahead.
I really don’t get comparing Biden’s approval rating to Trumps and claiming it’s slightly better. OK, so Biden is marginally better than the lowest approval rating in History, cool, that’s good enough for some of you though? Thats like someone calling me a bad singer and saying at least I’m better than William Hung before breaking into “She Bangs.” And it does matter. The party that holds the WH traditionally loses midterms. Not always, but most often. Polling can be an indicator how much of a swing to except. It’s not an exact science and nothing is certain, but it gives us a good idea on what is coming.
We don't need Biden's poor polling to tell us what's coming. We know what's coming. Repub control of congress, sham investigations, do nothing-just say no, make Biden a lame duck, blame failure on dems. major airing of grievances, setting up for the win of the WH in 2024. You know, putting the country first.
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
Popularity polls are different from election polls. There was a poll out a few months ago that showed support for Biden is still there.
Popularity polls may be different than election polls but they are related. A lot has happened in the past few months and none of it has improved Biden's polling. A few months ago Americans could still afford gas.
What point do you think you are making? His numbers have remained largely in the same position (a few points higher than his predecessor) since the Fall. Last week you said they were going down as a result of his son's laptop. Now you are saying they are going down because gas prices, that were already high, have gone up further due to the war in Europe?
And if his numbers do tick up again, would you believe them? Or would you revert to calling them fake?
There are multiple reasons why his polling is going down. I never said it was only one thing. I said weeks ago, before the laptop was recognized as legit by the NYT, his polling numbers would go down due to high gas prices and inflation.
If his numbers tick up again, I'm sure you will rub them in my face. You can do that and I won't call them fake like you call the polls I reference as being insignificant.
Why would I rub them in your face? I didn't call this Reuters poll fake, did I? I did call the nonsense you posted from Trump's donor's company meaningless...because they are.
Just go off of 538 to get an overall idea of how the approval numbers are looking as opposed to cherry picking a random one just because it suits your agenda. His numbers are not good right now. Everyone knows that. lol
You didn't call it fake but I would lean more towards insignificant.
Honestly, I hope his numbers do go up.
No, I said it is better to look at the average instead of cherry picking a poll or two and then coming on here and gloating. It's not a good look.
Ok, well you just called me out for that but you ignored that Germ Blansten did it. Germ gave us 1 poll that showed Biden would win the election. I linked to multiple polls that showed Trump would win.
It's not a good look to throw rocks from your glass house.
Biden lead Trump in all head to head polling for two years leading up to the 2020 election (this like 6 months worth 3 years out). So it was not a shock to those not in a cult that Trump lost. Again--the people who voted for Biden are not in a cult. We do not fly Biden flags and wear Biden shirts and hats like Trump supporters still do. We recognize that Biden's numbers are not good. It is likely that the republicans will win back the house this year and if Biden runs again, I don't think anyone here thinks he will waltz to re-election like most Trump supporters did for four years while they called all bad polling for their guy "fake news."
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
In my last post, I was making the point that you correctly accused me of only showing 1 measly poll. Germ did the same exact thing and you jumped on board without calling Germ out for only showing 1 poll. You then attack me by saying it's not a good look but then you wouldn't call out Germ for doing the same thing I did. Was it a good look for Germ when he posted 1 poll? You called it interesting and therefore were agreeing with what Germ did.
It's Mr Blansten if you're nasty
Sorry Mr. Blansten. It won't happen again.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. When looking at the poll you posted, it is clear it is only 1 poll of many. I don't think you were cherry picking a poll that you agreed with and even if you were, it doesn't bother me.
No I didn't think I did anything wrong at all. And not one of many....they aren't doing many polls. You can go look at that twitter account and check it out.
That's a Janet Jackson lyric by the way.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
So Biden said at the conference today they he never said sanctions were meant as a deterrent. So what are they for if not for a deterrent to keep the war going?
I don’t have an issue with Brandon’s response to the sanctions question, given the context of the full exchange.
Q Thank you, President Biden. If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.
Q But you’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the threat of the sanctions and imposing the sanctions and seeing the effect of the sanctions are two different things.
Q Okay, but —
THE PRESIDENT: They’re two different things. And we’re now going to — he’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions.
Q And what will that do — how will that change his mindset here, given he’s attacking Ukraine as we speak?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choices of whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond.
Q You said, in recent weeks, that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin was on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take? And if not —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a bluff; it’s on the table.
Q Sanctioning President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why not sanction him today, sir? Why not sanction him today, sir?
Q Mr. President —
Q Mr. President, if I can, you detailed some severe and swift new sanctions today and said the impact it will have over time, but given the full-scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from what’s called “SWIFT” — the international banking system — or other sanctions at your disposal, respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for?
THE PRESIDENT: Specifically, the sanctions we’ve imposed exceed SWIFT. The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
nor did he regale everyone with tales of how he won the electoral college like nobody has ever seen.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
nor did he regale everyone with tales of how he won the electoral college like nobody has ever seen.
So you're saying he sounded "Presidential?!?!?" My goodness. What a concept!
So Biden said at the conference today they he never said sanctions were meant as a deterrent. So what are they for if not for a deterrent to keep the war going?
Punishment
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
And you can bet they are deterring Putin to some degree. He's not going to admit that on the 11 o'clock news for fucks sake
It's a silly question, on the premise. Reporters ask binary questions but the world isn't binary. If sanctions didn't stop Putin does that mean we should not have done sanctions? What were the other options? 1. Go to war 2. Do nothing?
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
nor did he regale everyone with tales of how he won the electoral college like nobody has ever seen.
So you're saying he sounded "Presidential?!?!?" My goodness. What a concept!
No, Biden reads presidential but if you listen to him talk he sounds more retirement home
hippiemom = goodness
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,057
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
nor did he regale everyone with tales of how he won the electoral college like nobody has ever seen.
So you're saying he sounded "Presidential?!?!?" My goodness. What a concept!
No, Biden reads presidential but if you listen to him talk he sounds more retirement home
Well, it's true, the man is 79 years old. The thing is, I seriously doubt Biden would have run for president against a more rational, sane, and ethical republican candidate. But Biden knew he had a chance to win, and like many of us, he was massively concerned about Trump being re-elected. Biden ran, won, and prevented that from happening. Maybe instead of grousing about his age, we should be thanking our lucky stars we didn't end up with four more years of Trump. And in the mean time, let's do whatever it takes to not have Trump elected again.
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
nor did he regale everyone with tales of how he won the electoral college like nobody has ever seen.
So you're saying he sounded "Presidential?!?!?" My goodness. What a concept!
No, Biden reads presidential but if you listen to him talk he sounds more retirement home
Well, it's true, the man is 79 years old. The thing is, I seriously doubt Biden would have run for president against a more rational, sane, and ethical republican candidate. But Biden knew he had a chance to win, and like many of us, he was massively concerned about Trump being re-elected. Biden ran, won, and prevented that from happening. Maybe instead of grousing about his age, we should be thanking our lucky stars we didn't end up with four more years of Trump. And in the mean time, let's do whatever it takes to not have Trump elected again.
Sounding or reading, it's clearly better than what we had with Trump. I wish the bar was not so low, but alas, here we are...
www.myspace.com
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,057
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
nor did he regale everyone with tales of how he won the electoral college like nobody has ever seen.
So you're saying he sounded "Presidential?!?!?" My goodness. What a concept!
No, Biden reads presidential but if you listen to him talk he sounds more retirement home
Well, it's true, the man is 79 years old. The thing is, I seriously doubt Biden would have run for president against a more rational, sane, and ethical republican candidate. But Biden knew he had a chance to win, and like many of us, he was massively concerned about Trump being re-elected. Biden ran, won, and prevented that from happening. Maybe instead of grousing about his age, we should be thanking our lucky stars we didn't end up with four more years of Trump. And in the mean time, let's do whatever it takes to not have Trump elected again.
Sounding or reading, it's clearly better than what we had with Trump. I wish the bar was not so low, but alas, here we are...
Yeah, for sure. Let's hope that bar gets raised one day.
And you can bet they are deterring Putin to some degree. He's not going to admit that on the 11 o'clock news for fucks sake
It's a silly question, on the premise. Reporters ask binary questions but the world isn't binary. If sanctions didn't stop Putin does that mean we should not have done sanctions? What were the other options? 1. Go to war 2. Do nothing?
Exactly...
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
I don’t have an issue with Brandon’s response to the sanctions question, given the context of the full exchange.
Q Thank you, President Biden. If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.
Q But you’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the threat of the sanctions and imposing the sanctions and seeing the effect of the sanctions are two different things.
Q Okay, but —
THE PRESIDENT: They’re two different things. And we’re now going to — he’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions.
Q And what will that do — how will that change his mindset here, given he’s attacking Ukraine as we speak?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choices of whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond.
Q You said, in recent weeks, that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin was on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take? And if not —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a bluff; it’s on the table.
Q Sanctioning President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why not sanction him today, sir? Why not sanction him today, sir?
Q Mr. President —
Q Mr. President, if I can, you detailed some severe and swift new sanctions today and said the impact it will have over time, but given the full-scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from what’s called “SWIFT” — the international banking system — or other sanctions at your disposal, respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for?
THE PRESIDENT: Specifically, the sanctions we’ve imposed exceed SWIFT. The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.
what's funny about your "not one big beautiful" etc comment was, before I read your post, I was about to comment on his last answer and the parts I bolded sound exactly like Trump. lol
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
nor did he regale everyone with tales of how he won the electoral college like nobody has ever seen.
So you're saying he sounded "Presidential?!?!?" My goodness. What a concept!
No, Biden reads presidential but if you listen to him talk he sounds more retirement home
I think he just sounds like an intelligent man that has battled speech disability his entire life.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
I don’t have an issue with Brandon’s response to the sanctions question, given the context of the full exchange.
Q Thank you, President Biden. If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.
Q But you’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the threat of the sanctions and imposing the sanctions and seeing the effect of the sanctions are two different things.
Q Okay, but —
THE PRESIDENT: They’re two different things. And we’re now going to — he’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions.
Q And what will that do — how will that change his mindset here, given he’s attacking Ukraine as we speak?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choices of whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond.
Q You said, in recent weeks, that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin was on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take? And if not —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a bluff; it’s on the table.
Q Sanctioning President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why not sanction him today, sir? Why not sanction him today, sir?
Q Mr. President —
Q Mr. President, if I can, you detailed some severe and swift new sanctions today and said the impact it will have over time, but given the full-scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from what’s called “SWIFT” — the international banking system — or other sanctions at your disposal, respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for?
THE PRESIDENT: Specifically, the sanctions we’ve imposed exceed SWIFT. The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.
what's funny about your "not one big beautiful" etc comment was, before I read your post, I was about to comment on his last answer and the parts I bolded sound exactly like Trump. lol
I'd be willing to bet that Trump has never used the word "profound" in his life. And it's true about the sanctions. I'm fairly certain these sanctions exceed anything that was done to South Africa or anyone else.
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
I don’t have an issue with Brandon’s response to the sanctions question, given the context of the full exchange.
Q Thank you, President Biden. If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.
Q But you’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the threat of the sanctions and imposing the sanctions and seeing the effect of the sanctions are two different things.
Q Okay, but —
THE PRESIDENT: They’re two different things. And we’re now going to — he’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions.
Q And what will that do — how will that change his mindset here, given he’s attacking Ukraine as we speak?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choices of whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond.
Q You said, in recent weeks, that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin was on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take? And if not —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a bluff; it’s on the table.
Q Sanctioning President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why not sanction him today, sir? Why not sanction him today, sir?
Q Mr. President —
Q Mr. President, if I can, you detailed some severe and swift new sanctions today and said the impact it will have over time, but given the full-scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from what’s called “SWIFT” — the international banking system — or other sanctions at your disposal, respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for?
THE PRESIDENT: Specifically, the sanctions we’ve imposed exceed SWIFT. The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.
what's funny about your "not one big beautiful" etc comment was, before I read your post, I was about to comment on his last answer and the parts I bolded sound exactly like Trump. lol
I'd be willing to bet that Trump has never used the word "profound" in his life. And it's true about the sanctions. I'm fairly certain these sanctions exceed anything that was done to South Africa or anyone else.
I totally get that. It just struck me how trumpian those two sentences sounded to me.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
I don’t have an issue with Brandon’s response to the sanctions question, given the context of the full exchange.
Q Thank you, President Biden. If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.
Q But you’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the threat of the sanctions and imposing the sanctions and seeing the effect of the sanctions are two different things.
Q Okay, but —
THE PRESIDENT: They’re two different things. And we’re now going to — he’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions.
Q And what will that do — how will that change his mindset here, given he’s attacking Ukraine as we speak?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choices of whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond.
Q You said, in recent weeks, that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin was on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take? And if not —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a bluff; it’s on the table.
Q Sanctioning President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why not sanction him today, sir? Why not sanction him today, sir?
Q Mr. President —
Q Mr. President, if I can, you detailed some severe and swift new sanctions today and said the impact it will have over time, but given the full-scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from what’s called “SWIFT” — the international banking system — or other sanctions at your disposal, respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for?
THE PRESIDENT: Specifically, the sanctions we’ve imposed exceed SWIFT. The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.
what's funny about your "not one big beautiful" etc comment was, before I read your post, I was about to comment on his last answer and the parts I bolded sound exactly like Trump. lol
I'd be willing to bet that Trump has never used the word "profound" in his life. And it's true about the sanctions. I'm fairly certain these sanctions exceed anything that was done to South Africa or anyone else.
I totally get that. It just struck me how trumpian those two sentences sounded to me.
They're true, though. When Trump uses words like that to describe his own company and administration (best economy ever)--they're easily disputable. These Russia sanctions are actually historic.
And I don’t believe I read one “big,” “beautiful,” “ever known,” or “greatest of all time,” in his announcement and answers to follow up questions. Nor any made up word salad answers that have no relation to the questions asked or POTUS calling a reporter nasty or fake news. Imagine that?
I don’t have an issue with Brandon’s response to the sanctions question, given the context of the full exchange.
Q Thank you, President Biden. If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.
Q But you’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the threat of the sanctions and imposing the sanctions and seeing the effect of the sanctions are two different things.
Q Okay, but —
THE PRESIDENT: They’re two different things. And we’re now going to — he’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions.
Q And what will that do — how will that change his mindset here, given he’s attacking Ukraine as we speak?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choices of whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond.
Q You said, in recent weeks, that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin was on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take? And if not —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a bluff; it’s on the table.
Q Sanctioning President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why not sanction him today, sir? Why not sanction him today, sir?
Q Mr. President —
Q Mr. President, if I can, you detailed some severe and swift new sanctions today and said the impact it will have over time, but given the full-scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from what’s called “SWIFT” — the international banking system — or other sanctions at your disposal, respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for?
THE PRESIDENT: Specifically, the sanctions we’ve imposed exceed SWIFT. The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.
what's funny about your "not one big beautiful" etc comment was, before I read your post, I was about to comment on his last answer and the parts I bolded sound exactly like Trump. lol
I'd be willing to bet that Trump has never used the word "profound" in his life. And it's true about the sanctions. I'm fairly certain these sanctions exceed anything that was done to South Africa or anyone else.
Yeah the difference is truth. Lots of politicians make exaggerations but basically anything coming out of tRump's mouth was just bloviating bullshit.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Comments
So, again, I am not sure what point you think you are trying to make here.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I said it was "interesting" because Biden lead all the head to heads with Trump the last time. So I honestly didn't expect to see him leading any at the moment. That is "interesting" to me. Sorry if that offended you. Germ said he posted it as an example that not all polling for Biden is bad. He said that in his post. Good grief.
biden was competent enough to get the most votes in a federal election in history.
Thats like someone calling me a bad singer and saying at least I’m better than William Hung before breaking into “She Bangs.”
And it does matter. The party that holds the WH traditionally loses midterms. Not always, but most often. Polling can be an indicator how much of a swing to except. It’s not an exact science and nothing is certain, but it gives us a good idea on what is coming.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
That's a Janet Jackson lyric by the way.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Q Thank you, President Biden. If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.
Q But you’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the threat of the sanctions and imposing the sanctions and seeing the effect of the sanctions are two different things.
Q Okay, but —
THE PRESIDENT: They’re two different things. And we’re now going to — he’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions.
Q And what will that do — how will that change his mindset here, given he’s attacking Ukraine as we speak?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choices of whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond.
Q You said, in recent weeks, that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin was on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take? And if not —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a bluff; it’s on the table.
Q Sanctioning President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why not sanction him today, sir? Why not sanction him today, sir?
Q Mr. President —
Q Mr. President, if I can, you detailed some severe and swift new sanctions today and said the impact it will have over time, but given the full-scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from what’s called “SWIFT” — the international banking system — or other sanctions at your disposal, respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for?
THE PRESIDENT: Specifically, the sanctions we’ve imposed exceed SWIFT. The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.
Yes.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/24/remarks-by-president-biden-on-russias-unprovoked-and-unjustified-attack-on-ukraine/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Well, it's true, the man is 79 years old. The thing is, I seriously doubt Biden would have run for president against a more rational, sane, and ethical republican candidate. But Biden knew he had a chance to win, and like many of us, he was massively concerned about Trump being re-elected. Biden ran, won, and prevented that from happening. Maybe instead of grousing about his age, we should be thanking our lucky stars we didn't end up with four more years of Trump. And in the mean time, let's do whatever it takes to not have Trump elected again.
Yeah, for sure. Let's hope that bar gets raised one day.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2