We’re talking about shifts within polls, not whether it captures “the truth”

Aggregates of polls aren’t inherently better. It assumes that the aggregate bias is neutral

So it’s one thing to say that a poll isn’t correctly reading the signal

And it’s not

No, that’s not accurate

Where did you get that idea

I have class in 5 mins. Have a good day Sophie.

I hope it’s a statistics class.

***NEW RULE***

**Everytime u busted a nut, u have to say “Came” into the chat when u get back***

Sorry wrong send

<:laugh:583238348077006869>

Lol

Level setting though- with or without impeachment

Democrats have a 7 point lead in the generic ballot

IF that holds, trump can’t really win the presidency

Also, revising my statement to @Pelth

Trump’s approval rating as dropped 1.9% since pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry

I mean we all saw how quickly people like Kamala and Biden were completely thrown into the trash from a front runner position.

Bernie is in the hospital with an uncertain future

Warren has a very questionable history with lots of baggage that she can be roasted about.

It’s only a matter of time before an assault on her begins in earnest

Like Zuckerberg even said he would be forced to sue the government if warren wins and enacts her campaign promises

Trump has essentially unlimited resources this time around.

Are you a trump supporter?

😌🙏

Ofc

Odd

Heads up opinion polls this early in the game are also somewhat worthless. Most Americans have little to no knowledge of Democrat policy positions. When they realize later on into the campaign cycle just how radical they are this time, they’ll wholeheartedly or at least reluctantly go with trump.

I agree its too early.

Really don't understand how anyone could support Trump

GG @pennypal, you just advanced to level 1!

I mean I can, pretty much all the allegations against him as president have fallen flat, so people see him as the sort of political underdog

And because his policies aren't nearly as radical as the DNC

Even though he's an asshole

Even if you like his policies hes setting precedent that youre not gonna like if a potus in the future on the opposite side uses.

You're gonna have to explain a bit

What's the precedent you're referring to exactly?

Using the office as a vehicle to pursue political opponents, disregard for the rule of law and checks and balances

The exact same applies to the Democrats

1. He's cancel all daily press briefings. 2. He communicates via Twitter and claims he's joking so that I can get away with saying anything. 3. He only feels responsibility towards the people who elected him... And criticizes and discounts everybody who didn't 4. He signs executive orders to do just about anything because he can't gey congress to agree. ... The list of unprecedented acts is large

That's a fair point

No, that’s the manufactured smear the media uses. The media doesn’t care about the facts, only the spin.

At least with his communication and his behavior

I have my own opinion I don't have to reiterate what the media says

Some presidents have used like over 3000 executive orders and were universally beloved

The precedent is already there

There is precedent for insanely powerful presidents

Presidents are not supposed to be insanely powerful.. that makes Kings

She did not once mention executive orders

Are you illiterate?

Yes she did

1. He's cancel all daily press briefings. 2. He communicates via Twitter and claims he's joking so that I can get away with saying anything. 3. He only feels responsibility towards the people who elected him... And criticizes and discounts everybody who didn't 4. He signs executive orders to do just about anything because he can't gey congress to agree. ... The list of unprecedented acts is large

He signs executive orders to do just about anything because he can't gey congress to agree. ... The list of unprecedented acts is large

Ah sorry missed that

The president by design, is as powerful as he needs to be. The whole clause on executive orders was left intentionally vague.

We all miss shit

The Supreme Court is there to tell the president what is out of bounds

@Pelth I don’t think that’s true. There are a lot of powers that the legislature is supposed to have that have been taken over by the executive over the years

Like diverting funds from the military for the wall after it was rejected by the Congress.

Sure the supreme Court can get involved but it takes decades sometimes to get the right case.

There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn’t be able to divert funds that were already allocated

He is in charge of the military

Of course there is

Well, because that’s not how it’s laid out in he constitution pelth

Congress is supposed to and the power of the purse

No it’s not

...yes it is

It says says that in the constitution

Wholesale budget reallocations are much more common than you think

Pelth sincerely- have you read the constitution?

the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

For instance?

It was only made controversial because the liberals don’t want him to build a wall

So when else has something like this happened?

You're diverting topic

He’s also lying

Let's get back to the Constitution

Congress controls the purse, not the particulars in how each dollar is spent

False.

Congress allocates the money and says how it should be spent

The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power. One of the most prominent examples is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which eliminated all military funding for the government of South Vietnam and thereby ended the Vietnam War. Other recent examples include limitations on military funding placed on Ronald Reagan by Congress, which led to the withdrawal of United States Marines from Lebanon.

GG @pennypal, you just advanced to level 2!

The money was budgeted for military construction and is being spent for military construction

The wall is a pet project of trump and has nothing to do with the military

Immigration security is national security

Or is there an invasion?

Yes, by criminal aliens

Lol

There are more people overstaying their visas illegally... And by the way that's how the 9/11 bombers got in

Correct

To date no terrorists have come in through the southern border

Also, the military is expressly forbade from engaging in law enforcement

In fairness, pelth is literally an avowed fascist

It was found to be appropriate for him to use the money for the wall so you’re arguing based off incorrect interpretations

It was not

Yes it was

Right. When Trump sent troops to the southern border they couldn't do anything

He was cleared by the courts

If you believe that is true, you do not understand the ruling

No, it was ruled that the president has discretion while the case is decide