Electoralism/Democratism

Donald Trump Well-Known, but Not Well-Liked

This is interesting. Apparently, Trump’s supporters are a small but vocal minority.

Gallup.Com

Donald Trump Well-Known, but Not Well-Liked
by Andrew Dugan

Story Highlights

  • Trump’s net favorable stands at -27, well below others
  • Ben Carson has seen largest gain in overall public familiarity
  • Chris Christie’s image improves modestly

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The 2016 presidential candidates who are the most familiar to U.S. adults — Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush — also rank among the least-liked, in terms of their unfavorable rating exceeding their favorable rating. Trump vies with Clinton as the race’s best-known candidate, but he is by far the least-liked of the field, with 59% viewing him unfavorably and 32% favorably, yielding a net favorable score of -27.

pres_all_1

READ MORE

4 replies »

  1. It’s an interesting game the left and the right play. An acquaintance of mine is always posting videos from Fox News and other mainstream right-wing ‘news’ outlets on my, simultaneously entertaining and insufferable, Facebook account. There’s a really interesting interplay between the right and the left; They feed off of each other and create the illusion that a genuine intellectual struggle exists between them.
    According to Fox the real boogie man, the real enemy is radical Islam. And you see Obama (every problem is singularly Obama’s fault, like he is master dictator of America and the Universe, and not just basically a puppet for the elites) won’t say it’s radical Islam, or extremist Islam, so Fox News and Donald Trump, they’re like the political James Deans, they’re the rebels, because they’ll say the anti-PC words you’re not supposed to utter: radical Islam, Islamic terrorism.
    So, listeners feel like they’re winning on multiple counts when they listen to Fox News. You get the truth! The hidden, obscured, censored, inside truth. You’re an insider now, being privileged with important info. You are special, you’re being let in on the big secret. Also, by listening to this and agreeing, you’re a rebel, hearing words that shouldn’t be uttered in a PC environment. You’re also sticking it to the man, Obama. ‘Take that Obama, radical Islam is responsible!’ Finally, because Fox is going out of their way to tell you this dangerous information, you feel that they have honor and integrity. There’s authenticity and principle, they’re going to tell you the truth, even if it’s politically incorrect.
    Doubts may creep into your mind occasionally, but hey, you saw the ‘news.’ A fellow named Muhammad killed 10 people. The liberal media did call the killing spree ‘work place violence’ and left it at that, but you know better. We’ve been at war in the middle east (that place where lots of evil Muslims hang out) for 15 years now. His name is Muhammad so he’s Muslim. He killed ten people so he’s obviously an Islamic terrorist, and Fox News is the only news outlet who will privy you to the this truth. The rapport develops. ‘I can trust Fox News.’
    Meanwhile, most of these false flag operations are carried out by our own government or the Mossad. We’re the real terrorists who are responsible for god knows how many deaths in the last half century, I’ll throw out a rough estimate: 20 million, directly and indirectly. We’re part of the unmagnificent seven who is funding, training, and equipping ISIS. We did the same for Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
    Meanwhile, the left and the right play this endless game of pointing fingers at each other.
    Left: ‘Now you can’t blame all of Islam for the actions of a few. That’s racism and bigotry.’
    Right: ‘It’s radical Islam, just say it, speak the truth. ‘
    Left: ‘Islam is a religion of peace, These individuals are just outliers. you’re racist.’
    Both Left and Right ‘We need to continue to support the military in this war against terror in the middle east. We must tighten security at home.’
    While the mainstream media viewers are distracted by this unceasing deception, the real perpetrators go unnoticed.
    It would be interesting to break down all of the important issues in this manner and look at
    A. What the elites really want
    B. What stances do the MS corporate left and right take and what entertaining and distracting game are they playing to keep the elite’s true agenda hidden, while simultaneously subtly promoting and advancing that agenda.

  2. To expand upon what I wrote- I do not think every shooting spree is a false flag. However, there is considerable evidence to support that many of the mass shootings are (particularly when they involve Arabs and can be used to justify the continuance and expansion of the war on terror and the police state). Even in the recent San Bernardino shooting, you can see multiple News Programs interviewing different eyewitnesses, all claiming to have seen three Caucasian men in black, paramilitary attire with semiautomatics. The accounts seem to be similar and corroborate one another.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/san-bernardino-incident-has-the-earmarks-of-a-false-flag-testimony-of-eyewitnesses/5495126

    Yet, the dialog occurring on the airways of the MS media seems to be that of Identity politics or political correctness applied to foreign policy and national security. What should the perpetrators of religious-inspired violence be called and should it matter if it is offensive or insensitive? It’s much ado about nothing.
    No really important issues are being discussed. Even if it was truly an authentic act of Islamic terrorism, questions never arise such as is the US presence in the middle east increasing terrorism? Does not every bomb we drop only inspire more terrorism? What is the old saying, for every one terrorist you martyr, ten more are created.
    Chomsky gave an interesting talk about how there are certain parameters of political conversation. Within those parameters you can have as lively and boisterous a debate as you want, but you must not let the conversation venture beyond those parameters. My aforementioned questions are beyond the acceptable range of allowable discourse on mainstream media. You can discuss what to call the terrorists, whether or not we should send 1,000 or 2,000 troops, but you absolutely cannot question the War on Terror itself. That is sacrilegious.

  3. No Fox News financing, arming, training, aiding and abetting the terrorists contributes to our inability to fight them, not simply not being willing to say Islamic terrorism!

Leave a Reply