 |
| That's fake news! It's only accurate when the numbers go up. |
President Trump’s job approval rating slipped 4 points in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Thirty-nine percent of respondents now approve of the job the president is doing, compared to 57 percent who disapprove.
Trump's support fell among Republicans, whites, men, independents, women and Democrats. He gained support with voters between 18 and 34 years old.
One month ago, Trump’s job approval stood at 43 percent in the poll.
I am not really sure how much faith we should put into these polls.
Personally I cannot even fathom how anybody continues to support this orange tinted clown, but clearly there are still many who do.
When his numbers went up recently I felt like I was having an out of body experience, because it felt like almost half of the country were completely unaware that he might be impeached or criminally indicted at any minute.
Can hardly wait to see the response from these dimwits when that day finally arrives.
Someone on one of the comment sites joked that if Donald Trump were arrested his followers would not know because they are being blissfully isolated by his wrongdoings. Also that his tweets would suddenly become grammatically correct.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans will never split from Trump because they're deathly afraid that he will split off that wacky group that supports him regardless and break up the party for good.
ReplyDeleteI figure his polling will continue to be around 30%,his base.
ReplyDeleteIf he wants his first poll numbers to go up,he can resign,the numbers will be the highest in the history of the universe.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/internet-roasts-kellyanne-conway-confessing-comey-tipped-election-trump/
ReplyDeletehttps://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ad4194de4b077c89ce9efea
ReplyDeleteThe biggest i tell you...
I find it difficult to believe that drumpf gained support with voters between the ages of 18 and 34. Wonder how these younger people are being contacted and is this really a representative sample? What about the newly registered young voters, active in protests following the recent school/workplace shootings?
ReplyDeleteBad Boys! “It’s Time to Panic.” " the possibility of WAR. Both of his new hires are said to be hawks eager for WAR with both Iran and North Korea. As a headline in Slate announced:
ReplyDelete“It’s Time to Panic.”
" Remember George W. Bush? He too thought he could rely on his gut when making decisions. What do you think he told himself when millions started marching against the Iraq War? I suspect it was the same story Donald Trump is probably telling himself now. That’s the problem with gut thinking of this sort. It’s the all-purpose excuse for doing whatever you want to do whether it’s likely to succeed or fail."
" primatologist Frans de Waal, Trump resorts to bullying almost daily. In the real estate business bullying probably worked for him," lying, which Trump does almost every time he opens his mouth"The question isn’t whether Trump is going to continue to go with his instincts or not. We know now he is. Rather, the question is whether his supporters will."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/154083
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/trump-unhinged-president-operates-using-nothing-animal-instincts/
While I have no clue what he might have done to get the approval of the 18-34 I know what the older generations aren't happy. Stock market sucks and it's all on him. That's where their pension, portfolios and 401Ks are. When the market takes a dive their retirements are in jeopardy. And the stock market sucks because of his erratic and deplorable policies. Bombing Syria didn't help. WWIII isn't going to help either.
ReplyDeleteJWFB PART 1>"24 years on active duty, I never heard the term "mission accomplished" used other than by politicians.
ReplyDeleteThere are major problems with this phrase, particularly as used by this president for this most recent strike on Syria.
First: What does he mean by "mission?"
This isn't a rhetorical question. The terms matter.
Is he talking about a single strike? Or the larger objective of deterring Assad from using chemical weapons? Note that he didn't define what he meant, if he even knows.
There is a huge difference between Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) and Measure of Effect (MOE).
BDA is an assessment of whether or not the weapons struck their intended targets. I.e. blowing shit up.
MOE is an assessment of whether or not the PLAN OBJECTIVES were met.
We don't just bomb things to bomb things.
A strike is -- ideally -- part of a larger plan. A military plan is based on national objectives. The strategic objective here is (assumed from context) to deter Assad from future use of chemical weapons.
How you achieve those objectives, militarily, is a complex process based on the intelligence picture, doctrine, available assets, time frame, probable risks, possible strategic and tactical gains, politics, and so on.
The result of this process is the Operational Plan.
This planning process is continuous and ongoing. The military generates plans at all levels of granularity for every conceivable scenario. It's a structured process with a specific format and components.
When, IF, needed, the plan is updated based on the latest intel and strategic/tactical assessment, available assets, targets, weather, time, etc.
It always begins with the plan OBJECTIVES.
You have to have a methodology of determining if those objectives have been met.
How we determine that is often a classified process based on the fusion of intelligence from a variety of inputs that may be both quantitative (i.e. directly measurable) or qualitative (inferred from enemy action or response).
This process of determining if the objectives have been met is called MOE." Next part 2>
Part2FB>"THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART."
ReplyDelete"You can bomb shit all day, but if you didn't achieve the OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN, then you fail even if every missle was dead on target (BDA).
Ideally, you have high BDA and MOE, i.e. your intel is good, you plan is good, your weapons strike the target, the targets are destroyed or disabled, and the strategic objectives of the plan are met.
But it doesn't always work out that way.
For example: your bombs struck the intended bunkers and destroyed them. You know this because you can see it and measure it directly. 5 missiles, 5 bunkers, 5 piles of rubble. And you got pictures.
That's high BDA.
HOWEVER, if your objective was to prevent the enemy from carrying out a certain action and the bunkers turned out not to be what you thought, or they were empty, or not as critical to the enemy as you thought, etc., well, then you didn't stop the enemy from being able to do what he wants and thus you didn't meet the objectives of the plan.
You hit all the targets and destroyed them, high BDA.
But you didn't achieve the STRATEGIC objective, low MOE.
Now, in this scenario, you COULD say that the MISSION was accomplished.
You launched the missiles and they struck the targets as intended. You launched your aircraft and they carried out their orders and returned safely. The MISSION was accomplished.
BUT in this example, while the MISSION was successfully accomplished, the STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE wasn't met.
You're going to have to get better intel. You're going to have to retarget, reassess, go back in, or accept that you failed to meet the objectives set by national authority.
Note: There may be MANY missions within a single plan to achieve a particular objective.
Successful accomplishment of a single mission doesn't mean the objective has been met. Failure of a mission doesn't mean the overall objective wasn't achieved. We plan for failure.
The goal isn't to blow shit up, the goal is to achieve the objective of the plan.
There are many, many shades of gray when it comes to "mission accomplished."
And like every thing else with this administration, you'll note that the president didn't define the terms.
When a politician says "Mission accomplished" the questions you need to ask are:
1. Define "mission." What is the objective?
2. Define "accomplished." How do you measure it against the objective?
3. Forget the individual mission, was the objective of the overall PLAN accomplished? Were the national objectives met? How do you know?
Regarding the Syrian raid, the strike mission may have been accomplished successfully, but you don't know if the OBJECTIVE was met because you have no way to determine if Assad will use chemical weapons in the future.
Unless the terms are specifically defined, "Mission Accomplished" means absolutely nothing -- particularly coming from a politician.
Which is why the military doesn't use the term.
After decades of war, Americans should be smart enough to recognize this and to demand accountability from their leaders.
If you want a better nation, you have to be better citizens."
Jim Wright