Current Events > GOP tax cuts are becoming less popular in polling

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Anteaterking 06/25/18 5:30:42 PM #52:	FLUFFYGERM posted... With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range. There's plenty of reason to exclude the December '17 poll if you are trying to project a trend line for this year. In particular, the December poll preceded the actual passage of the final bill (you can even see that in the wording). It's very clear what the narrative is, like @Balrog0 has been saying. In December, the tax bill was unpopular because people on both sides of the aisle disapproved of different versions of it. In January, when all of the articles were coming out about how insert company was giving bonuses to their workers (many of which you tried to hype yourself), the average uninformed person took that as an indication that the tax bill "was working". As time has gone on, people who thought they would be seeing benefits from the tax bill quickly haven't seen that, so their approval has gone down. If you are a GOP candidate looking at these numbers, do you look at the change from December to now and say "I guess I should run on the tax plan!"? Or do you look at how things have been trending recently? --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903948752] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range.</quote> There's plenty of reason to exclude the December '17 poll if you are trying to project a trend line for this year. In particular, the December poll preceded the actual passage of the final bill (you can even see that in the wording). It's very clear what the narrative is, like @Balrog0 has been saying. In December, the tax bill was unpopular because people on both sides of the aisle disapproved of different versions of it. In January, when all of the articles were coming out about how insert company was giving bonuses to their workers (many of which you tried to hype yourself), the average uninformed person took that as an indication that the tax bill "was working". As time has gone on, people who thought they would be seeing benefits from the tax bill quickly haven't seen that, so their approval has gone down. If you are a GOP candidate looking at these numbers, do you look at the change from December to now and say "I guess I should run on the tax plan!"? Or do you look at how things have been trending recently?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 5:31:19 PM #53:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... its already plotted Ah, didn't load the graph the first time. Anyway, what is your point exactly? These numbers are along the same lines as what I said and not in favor of what Antifar said unless you're also going to cherrypick the date ranges that prove your point rather than look at the entire date range. I just don't understand what the cherrypicking supposedly is here. What you're saying isn't incompatible with the fact that it is getting less popular. It had what we can clearly see is one time increase in popularity that is fading. --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903948787] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>its already plotted</quote> Ah, didn't load the graph the first time. Anyway, what is your point exactly? These numbers are along the same lines as what I said and not in favor of what Antifar said unless you're also going to cherrypick the date ranges that prove your point rather than look at the entire date range.</quote> I just don't understand what the cherrypicking supposedly is here. What you're saying isn't incompatible with the fact that it is getting less popular. It had what we can clearly see is one time increase in popularity that is fading.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:34:42 PM #54:	Anteaterking posted... There's plenty of reason to exclude the December '17 poll if you are trying to project a trend line for this year. In particular, the December poll preceded the actual passage of the final bill (you can even see that in the wording). It's very clear what the narrative is, like @Balrog0 has been saying. In December, the tax bill was unpopular because people on both sides of the aisle disapproved of different versions of it. In January, when all of the articles were coming out about how insert company was giving bonuses to their workers (many of which you tried to hype yourself), the average uninformed person took that as an indication that the tax bill "was working". As time has gone on, people who thought they would be seeing benefits from the tax bill quickly haven't seen that, so their approval has gone down. Dishonest. If that was the case, the researchers wouldn't have bothered to poll anyone in December and to retain that data in their results. Anteaterking posted... If you are a GOP candidate looking at these numbers, do you look at the change from December to now and say "I guess I should run on the tax plan!"? Or do you look at how things have been trending recently? If you looked at the more recent numbers, from April to now, you'd see fewer people approving and also fewer people disapproving. With a lot more people saying that they don't know. Which would mean that we should leave things as is and see what people think in the next few months. But I'd also not base policy on polling. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903948980] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>There's plenty of reason to exclude the December '17 poll if you are trying to project a trend line for this year. In particular, the December poll preceded the actual passage of the final bill (you can even see that in the wording). It's very clear what the narrative is, like @Balrog0 has been saying. In December, the tax bill was unpopular because people on both sides of the aisle disapproved of different versions of it. In January, when all of the articles were coming out about how insert company was giving bonuses to their workers (many of which you tried to hype yourself), the average uninformed person took that as an indication that the tax bill "was working". As time has gone on, people who thought they would be seeing benefits from the tax bill quickly haven't seen that, so their approval has gone down.</quote> Dishonest. If that was the case, the researchers wouldn't have bothered to poll anyone in December and to retain that data in their results. <cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>If you are a GOP candidate looking at these numbers, do you look at the change from December to now and say "I guess I should run on the tax plan!"? Or do you look at how things have been trending recently? </quote> If you looked at the more recent numbers, from April to now, you'd see fewer people approving and also fewer people disapproving. With a lot more people saying that they don't know. Which would mean that we should leave things as is and see what people think in the next few months. But I'd also not base policy on polling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 06/25/18 5:35:07 PM #55:	"Polls and numbers have been destroyed forever by Trump winning. Take that fake news liberals!" "The polls say Trump is looking popular and that the Blue Wave won't happen. Get fucked, liberals!" "The polls say a Trump policy is unpopular? Polls suck! Remember the 2016 election?" --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:903949008] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>"Polls and numbers have been destroyed forever by Trump winning. Take that fake news liberals!" "The polls say Trump is looking popular and that the Blue Wave won't happen. Get fucked, liberals!" "The polls say a Trump policy is unpopular? Polls suck! Remember the 2016 election?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:37:13 PM #56:	Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... its already plotted Ah, didn't load the graph the first time. Anyway, what is your point exactly? These numbers are along the same lines as what I said and not in favor of what Antifar said unless you're also going to cherrypick the date ranges that prove your point rather than look at the entire date range. I just don't understand what the cherrypicking supposedly is here. What you're saying isn't incompatible with the fact that it is getting less popular. It had what we can clearly see is one time increase in popularity that is fading. More people approve of it and less people disapprove of it now than in December, broseph. You could even cherrypick January to now and see that the number of people who said they don't know almost doubled, which could simply be the result of CNN's non-stop bullshit coverage of the tax cuts. Like I said, this can be cherrypicked in so many ways depending on which narrative you want to peddle. So ultimately we need to abandon the data or take all of it into consideration. I guarantee you that if this data was showing a consistent decline in approval from December 2017 to June 2018 you'd all be worshiping the entire date range. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903949126] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>its already plotted</quote> Ah, didn't load the graph the first time. Anyway, what is your point exactly? These numbers are along the same lines as what I said and not in favor of what Antifar said unless you're also going to cherrypick the date ranges that prove your point rather than look at the entire date range.</quote> I just don't understand what the cherrypicking supposedly is here. What you're saying isn't incompatible with the fact that it is getting less popular. It had what we can clearly see is one time increase in popularity that is fading.</quote> More people approve of it and less people disapprove of it now than in December, broseph. You could even cherrypick January to now and see that the number of people who said they don't know almost doubled, which could simply be the result of CNN's non-stop bullshit coverage of the tax cuts. Like I said, this can be cherrypicked in so many ways depending on which narrative you want to peddle. So ultimately we need to abandon the data or take all of it into consideration. I guarantee you that if this data was showing a consistent decline in approval from December 2017 to June 2018 you'd all be worshiping the entire date range.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Annihilated 06/25/18 5:38:26 PM #57:	Yeah people are tired of having all that extra money already. <cite>Annihilated posted [p:903949196] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>Yeah people are tired of having all that extra money already.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 5:39:12 PM #58:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... its already plotted Ah, didn't load the graph the first time. Anyway, what is your point exactly? These numbers are along the same lines as what I said and not in favor of what Antifar said unless you're also going to cherrypick the date ranges that prove your point rather than look at the entire date range. I just don't understand what the cherrypicking supposedly is here. What you're saying isn't incompatible with the fact that it is getting less popular. It had what we can clearly see is one time increase in popularity that is fading. More people approve of it and less people disapprove of it now than in December, broseph. You could even cherrypick January to now and see that the number of people who said they don't know almost doubled, which could simply be the result of CNN's non-stop bullshit coverage of the tax cuts. Like I said, this can be cherrypicked in so many ways depending on which narrative you want to peddle. So ultimately we need to abandon the data or take all of it into consideration. I guarantee you that if this data was showing a consistent decline in approval from December 2017 to June 2018 you'd all be worshiping the entire date range. I am looking at all the data. It shows a. surge in popularity followed by a decline. I'm not discounting anything, I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903949230] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>its already plotted</quote> Ah, didn't load the graph the first time. Anyway, what is your point exactly? These numbers are along the same lines as what I said and not in favor of what Antifar said unless you're also going to cherrypick the date ranges that prove your point rather than look at the entire date range.</quote> I just don't understand what the cherrypicking supposedly is here. What you're saying isn't incompatible with the fact that it is getting less popular. It had what we can clearly see is one time increase in popularity that is fading.</quote> More people approve of it and less people disapprove of it now than in December, broseph. You could even cherrypick January to now and see that the number of people who said they don't know almost doubled, which could simply be the result of CNN's non-stop bullshit coverage of the tax cuts. Like I said, this can be cherrypicked in so many ways depending on which narrative you want to peddle. So ultimately we need to abandon the data or take all of it into consideration. I guarantee you that if this data was showing a consistent decline in approval from December 2017 to June 2018 you'd all be worshiping the entire date range.</quote> I am looking at all the data. It shows a. surge in popularity followed by a decline. I'm not discounting anything, I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 06/25/18 5:40:36 PM #59:	Annihilated posted... Yeah people are tired of having all that extra money already. wtf now we trust the government --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:903949306] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Annihilated posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah people are tired of having all that extra money already.</quote> wtf now we trust the government</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:40:41 PM #60:	Balrog0 posted... I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE" --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903949310] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers </quote> "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:41:17 PM #61:	How come you aren't mentioning the surge in unpopularity that is also on the decline? lmao or the surge in people who no longer have an opinion because they don't know? --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903949347] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>How come you aren't mentioning the surge in unpopularity that is also on the decline? lmao or the surge in people who no longer have an opinion because they don't know?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 5:42:05 PM #62:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE" Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903949394] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers </quote> "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE"</quote> Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 06/25/18 5:42:35 PM #63:	I wonder how many more posts this is going to continue --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:903949424] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>I wonder how many more posts this is going to continue</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/25/18 5:43:38 PM #64:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Dishonest. If that was the case, the researchers wouldn't have bothered to poll anyone in December and to retain that data in their results. This is a dishonest reading of what I said. And besides, if Monmouth believed as you did, they would only be showing us the December and now results because any other data points don't matter. FLUFFYGERM posted... If you looked at the more recent numbers, from April to now, you'd see fewer people approving and also fewer people disapproving. With a lot more people saying that they don't know. Which would mean that we should leave things as is and see what people think in the next few months. But I'd also not base policy on polling. It's not about basing policy on polling. You can be pro-this tax plan as a politician but still think you shouldn't spend your campaign reminding people of it. Also even if you want to focus on just April and now (which seems awfully cherrypicking to me), approval dropped 6 points and disapproval dropped 3 points. Approval also was a smaller portion than disapproval in April so the fact that they lost more doesn't bode well. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903949486] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Dishonest. If that was the case, the researchers wouldn't have bothered to poll anyone in December and to retain that data in their results.</quote> This is a dishonest reading of what I said. And besides, if Monmouth believed as you did, they would only be showing us the December and now results because any other data points don't matter. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>If you looked at the more recent numbers, from April to now, you'd see fewer people approving and also fewer people disapproving. With a lot more people saying that they don't know. Which would mean that we should leave things as is and see what people think in the next few months. But I'd also not base policy on polling.</quote> It's not about basing policy on polling. You can be pro-this tax plan as a politician but still think you shouldn't spend your campaign reminding people of it. Also even if you want to focus on just April and now (which seems awfully cherrypicking to me), approval dropped 6 points and disapproval dropped 3 points. Approval also was a smaller portion than disapproval in April so the fact that they lost more doesn't bode well.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:44:07 PM #65:	Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE" Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough Everything except the entire date range for a data set that is already extremely limited given that it covers less than a year of sentiment. Everything except for that and also the decline in people who disapprove and the surge in people who don't know anymore. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903949514] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers </quote> "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE"</quote> Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough</quote> Everything except the entire date range for a data set that is already extremely limited given that it covers less than a year of sentiment. Everything except for that and also the decline in people who disapprove and the surge in people who don't know anymore.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Annihilated 06/25/18 5:44:51 PM #66:	hockeybub89 posted... Annihilated posted... Yeah people are tired of having all that extra money already. wtf now we trust the government When have you ever NOT trusted the government? Also that's a pretty off topic thing to say. <cite>Annihilated posted [p:903949553] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Annihilated posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah people are tired of having all that extra money already.</quote> wtf now we trust the government</quote> When have you ever NOT trusted the government? Also that's a pretty off topic thing to say.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 5:45:26 PM #67:	FLUFFYGERM posted... How come you aren't mentioning the surge in unpopularity that is also on the decline? lmao or the surge in people who no longer have an opinion because they don't know? Because that isn't what happened for the former. The disapproval fell sharply before coming back up, but more modestly than the drop in approval. There's then also a very modest decrease in disapproval that could be explained by an increase in not sures and don't knows! --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903949590] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>How come you aren't mentioning the surge in unpopularity that is also on the decline? lmao or the surge in people who no longer have an opinion because they don't know?</quote> Because that isn't what happened for the former. The disapproval fell sharply before coming back up, but more modestly than the drop in approval. There's then also a very modest decrease in disapproval that could be explained by an increase in not sures and don't knows!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:48:17 PM #68:	Anteaterking posted... This is a dishonest reading of what I said. And besides, if Monmouth believed as you did, they would only be showing us the December and now results because any other data points don't matter. That's a valid point. Although we can both agree that the data points matter without resorting to fanciful leaps in logic based on cherrypicking the ranges we care about. Anteaterking posted... It's not about basing policy on polling. You can be pro-this tax plan as a politician but still think you shouldn't spend your campaign reminding people of it. Also even if you want to focus on just April and now (which seems awfully cherrypicking to me), approval dropped 6 points and disapproval dropped 3 points. Approval also was a smaller portion than disapproval in April so the fact that they lost more doesn't bode well. I don't want to focus on April and now. That was for the sake of argument, to show you why cherrypicking is bad. If we WERE to cherrypick the recent datapoints like you asked when you asked about what a politician should do, the data still doesn't show what the topic title is arguing as the data shows that the disapprovals also declined. The only really notable thing in the data from that date range would be the number of people who don't know anymore. But once again, this data is so limited and polling is so useless that we shouldn't even be basing any aspect of our worldview on this. Like, it's seriously stupid if we do that. I'm just getting a good chuckle out of people trying to argue that the tax cuts are becoming less popular but without admitting that they're looking specifically at the dates that show that. shrug --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903949748] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>This is a dishonest reading of what I said. And besides, if Monmouth believed as you did, they would only be showing us the December and now results because any other data points don't matter. </quote> That's a valid point. Although we can both agree that the data points matter without resorting to fanciful leaps in logic based on cherrypicking the ranges we care about. <cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>It's not about basing policy on polling. You can be pro-this tax plan as a politician but still think you shouldn't spend your campaign reminding people of it. Also even if you want to focus on just April and now (which seems awfully cherrypicking to me), approval dropped 6 points and disapproval dropped 3 points. Approval also was a smaller portion than disapproval in April so the fact that they lost more doesn't bode well.</quote> I don't want to focus on April and now. That was for the sake of argument, to show you why cherrypicking is bad. If we WERE to cherrypick the recent datapoints like you asked when you asked about what a politician should do, the data still doesn't show what the topic title is arguing as the data shows that the disapprovals also declined. The only really notable thing in the data from that date range would be the number of people who don't know anymore. But once again, this data is so limited and polling is so useless that we shouldn't even be basing any aspect of our worldview on this. Like, it's seriously stupid if we do that. I'm just getting a good chuckle out of people trying to argue that the tax cuts are becoming less popular but without admitting that they're looking specifically at the dates that show that. shrug</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 5:48:41 PM #69:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE" Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough Everything except the entire date range for a data set that is already extremely limited given that it covers less than a year of sentiment. Everything except for that and also the decline in people who disapprove and the surge in people who don't know anymore. I keep saying it got more popular, how could I say that if I were ignoring before it got popular? Approval ratings are typically discussed in terms of the approve/disapprove disparity. and don't count don't knows directly. But I agree that an increase in don't knows explains a lot, one reason I'm okay with your hypothetical breitbart article is that it underscores the reality that the gulf between approve/disprove hides an important point regarding the strength of the disapproval. and approval ratings --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903949778] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers </quote> "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE"</quote> Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough</quote> Everything except the entire date range for a data set that is already extremely limited given that it covers less than a year of sentiment. Everything except for that and also the decline in people who disapprove and the surge in people who don't know anymore.</quote> I keep saying it got more popular, how could I say that if I were ignoring before it got popular? Approval ratings are typically discussed in terms of the approve/disapprove disparity. and don't count don't knows directly. But I agree that an increase in don't knows explains a lot, one reason I'm okay with your hypothetical breitbart article is that it underscores the reality that the gulf between approve/disprove hides an important point regarding the strength of the disapproval. and approval ratings</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:50:19 PM #70:	Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... How come you aren't mentioning the surge in unpopularity that is also on the decline? lmao or the surge in people who no longer have an opinion because they don't know? Because that isn't what happened for the former. The disapproval fell sharply before coming back up, but more modestly than the drop in approval. There's then also a very modest decrease in disapproval that could be explained by an increase in not sures and don't knows! It can all be explained however you want to explain it if you pick the start and end points that best suit the narrative you're already predisposed to peddle. That is why the bolded objective statement I made about the data a few posts back, which includes December 2017 to June 2018, is the best type of statement to make as it it includes all of the data and doesn't rely on trying to interpret public sentiment off of 800 phone calls made in the course of two or three months, which would be lunacy. Note that if December 2017 to June 2018 was showing a consistent decline in just approvals...Vox would be worshiping that data like it was the Virgin Mary's ass hairs. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903949889] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>How come you aren't mentioning the surge in unpopularity that is also on the decline? lmao or the surge in people who no longer have an opinion because they don't know?</quote> Because that isn't what happened for the former. The disapproval fell sharply before coming back up, but more modestly than the drop in approval. There's then also a very modest decrease in disapproval that could be explained by an increase in not sures and don't knows!</quote> It can all be explained however you want to explain it if you pick the start and end points that best suit the narrative you're already predisposed to peddle. That is why the bolded objective statement I made about the data a few posts back, which includes December 2017 to June 2018, is the best type of statement to make as it it includes all of the data and doesn't rely on trying to interpret public sentiment off of 800 phone calls made in the course of two or three months, which would be lunacy. Note that if December 2017 to June 2018 was showing a consistent decline in just approvals...Vox would be worshiping that data like it was the Virgin Mary's ass hairs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:50:51 PM #71:	Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Balrog0 posted... I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE" Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough Everything except the entire date range for a data set that is already extremely limited given that it covers less than a year of sentiment. Everything except for that and also the decline in people who disapprove and the surge in people who don't know anymore. I keep saying it got more popular, how could I say that if I were ignoring before it got popular? Approval ratings are typically discussed in terms of the approve/disapprove disparity. and don't count don't knows directly. But I agree that an increase in don't knows explains a lot, one reason I'm okay with your hypothetical breitbart article is that it underscores the reality that the gulf between approve/disprove hides an important point regarding the strength of the disapproval. and approval ratings Balrog confirmed to be Breitbart supporter / 10 --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903949912] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm just not letting you dictate. that we need to just look at the beginning and ending numbers </quote> "god fucking dammit you better look at the date range that shows I'm right OR ELSE"</quote> Again, I am not doing that. You are actually the one trying to limit our analysis to two points, I'm the one saying we should look at everything, funnily enough</quote> Everything except the entire date range for a data set that is already extremely limited given that it covers less than a year of sentiment. Everything except for that and also the decline in people who disapprove and the surge in people who don't know anymore.</quote> I keep saying it got more popular, how could I say that if I were ignoring before it got popular? Approval ratings are typically discussed in terms of the approve/disapprove disparity. and don't count don't knows directly. But I agree that an increase in don't knows explains a lot, one reason I'm okay with your hypothetical breitbart article is that it underscores the reality that the gulf between approve/disprove hides an important point regarding the strength of the disapproval. and approval ratings</quote> Balrog confirmed to be Breitbart supporter / 10</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:53:06 PM #72:	You raise a good point, though. The infinitely more accurate topic title and Vox article would've been "Many more Americans no longer know if they actually disapprove of the GOP tax cuts" But since that type of article is the completely opposite agenda, you'll never see it on Vox lmao --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903950046] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>You raise a good point, though. The infinitely more accurate topic title and Vox article would've been "Many more Americans no longer know if they actually disapprove of the GOP tax cuts" But since that type of article is the completely opposite agenda, you'll never see it on Vox lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 5:53:10 PM #73:	It really isn't as infinitely open to interpretation as you want it to be --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903950054] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>It really isn't as infinitely open to interpretation as you want it to be</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 5:58:03 PM #74:	It isn't infinitely open to interpretation unless you are okay with picking custom start and end dates lmao. If you look at the entire data without interpretation it's clear. Yes, there are points in time when there were more approvals, less approvals, more disapprovals, less disapprovals, etc, but ultimately the final state of the data compared with the original state of the data is pretty basic. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903950334] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>It isn't infinitely open to interpretation unless you are okay with picking custom start and end dates lmao. If you look at the entire data without interpretation it's clear. Yes, there are points in time when there were more approvals, less approvals, more disapprovals, less disapprovals, etc, but ultimately the final state of the data compared with the original state of the data is pretty basic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 06/25/18 5:59:40 PM #75:	Wait is FLUFFYGERM Proudclad? --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:903950427] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>Wait is FLUFFYGERM Proudclad?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:00:15 PM #76:	This is the third or fourth time you asked that and been told that the answer is yes. Cut the bullshit. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903950466] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>This is the third or fourth time you asked that and been told that the answer is yes. Cut the bullshit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/25/18 6:00:24 PM #77:	FLUFFYGERM posted... That is why the bolded objective statement I made about the data a few posts back, which includes December 2017 to June 2018, is the best type of statement to make as it it includes all of the data Assuming you are talking about this one: FLUFFYGERM posted... From December of 2017 to June of 2018, six months later, more people approve of the tax cuts and fewer people disapprove of the tax cuts. It doesn't include all of the data. It incorporates exactly two data points. You seem to be conflating the length of time covered with an amount of data. The statement "The percent of Americans who approve or strongly approve of the tax bill has decreased for each of the last three Monmouth polls" incorporates more data than yours does, despite covering a shorter range. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903950478] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>That is why the bolded objective statement I made about the data a few posts back, which includes December 2017 to June 2018, is the best type of statement to make as it it includes all of the data</quote> Assuming you are talking about this one: <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>From December of 2017 to June of 2018, six months later, more people approve of the tax cuts and fewer people disapprove of the tax cuts.</quote> It doesn't include all of the data. It incorporates exactly two data points. You seem to be conflating the length of time covered with an amount of data. The statement "The percent of Americans who approve or strongly approve of the tax bill has decreased for each of the last three Monmouth polls" incorporates more data than yours does, despite covering a shorter range.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 06/25/18 6:01:34 PM #78:	Proudclowning as usual. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:903950551] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>Proudclowning as usual.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:01:36 PM #79:	Anteaterking posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... That is why the bolded objective statement I made about the data a few posts back, which includes December 2017 to June 2018, is the best type of statement to make as it it includes all of the data Assuming you are talking about this one: FLUFFYGERM posted... From December of 2017 to June of 2018, six months later, more people approve of the tax cuts and fewer people disapprove of the tax cuts. It doesn't include all of the data. It incorporates exactly two data points. You seem to be conflating the length of time covered with an amount of data. The statement "The percent of Americans who approve or strongly approve of the tax bill has decreased for each of the last three Monmouth polls" incorporates more data than yours does, despite covering a shorter range. It does incorporate all the data, it just doesn't offer interpretation on what happened in between. It summarizes the change in sentiment relative to what the first polled instances of the sentiments were. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903950553] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>That is why the bolded objective statement I made about the data a few posts back, which includes December 2017 to June 2018, is the best type of statement to make as it it includes all of the data</quote> Assuming you are talking about this one: <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>From December of 2017 to June of 2018, six months later, more people approve of the tax cuts and fewer people disapprove of the tax cuts.</quote> It doesn't include all of the data. It incorporates exactly two data points. You seem to be conflating the length of time covered with an amount of data. The statement "The percent of Americans who approve or strongly approve of the tax bill has decreased for each of the last three Monmouth polls" incorporates more data than yours does, despite covering a shorter range.</quote> It does incorporate all the data, it just doesn't offer interpretation on what happened in between. It summarizes the change in sentiment relative to what the first polled instances of the sentiments were.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BLAKUboy 06/25/18 6:02:41 PM #80:	Doom_Art posted... Wait is FLUFFYGERM Proudclad? I was under the assumption everyone was aware of this by now. --- Aeris dies if she takes more damage than her current HP - Panthera https://signavatar.com/26999_s.png <cite>BLAKUboy posted [p:903950613] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>Wait is FLUFFYGERM Proudclad?</quote> I was under the assumption everyone was aware of this by now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 06/25/18 6:03:57 PM #81:	BLAKUboy posted... I was under the assumption everyone was aware of this by now I had no idea lol --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:903950696] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>BLAKUboy posted...</cite> <quote>I was under the assumption everyone was aware of this by now</quote> I had no idea lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/25/18 6:08:09 PM #82:	FLUFFYGERM posted... It does incorporate all the data, it just doesn't offer interpretation on what happened in between. It summarizes the change in sentiment relative to what the first polled instances of the sentiments were. Some of this conversation has depended on squishy things like "what is the best way of presenting this infromation", etc. but it is absolutely NOT true that it incorporates all of the data. Not only can you not recover the values for January, March, or April from the two endpoints, you can't even get reasonable estimates for them. I said you were conflating time range with data, and you said "No" and then did exactly that. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903950941] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It does incorporate all the data, it just doesn't offer interpretation on what happened in between. It summarizes the change in sentiment relative to what the first polled instances of the sentiments were.</quote> Some of this conversation has depended on squishy things like "what is the best way of presenting this infromation", etc. but it is absolutely NOT true that it incorporates all of the data. Not only can you not recover the values for January, March, or April from the two endpoints, you can't even get reasonable estimates for them. I said you were conflating time range with data, and you said "No" and then did exactly that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:09:52 PM #83:	Anteaterking posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It does incorporate all the data, it just doesn't offer interpretation on what happened in between. It summarizes the change in sentiment relative to what the first polled instances of the sentiments were. Some of this conversation has depended on squishy things like "what is the best way of presenting this infromation", etc. but it is absolutely NOT true that it incorporates all of the data. Not only can you not recover the values for January, March, or April from the two endpoints, you can't even get reasonable estimates for them. I said you were conflating time range with data, and you said "No" and then did exactly that. I refer you to post #8 where I included all of the data. The only additional thing I could've done would be to include sentences saying "from January to February, this metric rose/fell by X%" which would've been just pointless verbiage since you can easily see all of that by looking at the graph. I feel like by "include all the data" you mean "offer commentary on every data point" --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903951057] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It does incorporate all the data, it just doesn't offer interpretation on what happened in between. It summarizes the change in sentiment relative to what the first polled instances of the sentiments were.</quote> Some of this conversation has depended on squishy things like "what is the best way of presenting this infromation", etc. but it is absolutely NOT true that it incorporates all of the data. Not only can you not recover the values for January, March, or April from the two endpoints, you can't even get reasonable estimates for them. I said you were conflating time range with data, and you said "No" and then did exactly that.</quote> I refer you to post #8 where I included all of the data. The only additional thing I could've done would be to include sentences saying "from January to February, this metric rose/fell by X%" which would've been just pointless verbiage since you can easily see all of that by looking at the graph. I feel like by "include all the data" you mean "offer commentary on every data point"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/25/18 6:11:12 PM #84:	FLUFFYGERM posted... I refer you to post #8 where I included all of the data. The only additional thing I could've done would be to include sentences saying "from January to February, this metric rose/fell by X%" which would've been just pointless verbiage since you can easily see all of that by looking at the graph. I feel like by "include all the data" you mean "offer commentary on every data point" Monmouth's table includes all the data. Your bolded statement does not. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903951127] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>I refer you to post #8 where I included all of the data. The only additional thing I could've done would be to include sentences saying "from January to February, this metric rose/fell by X%" which would've been just pointless verbiage since you can easily see all of that by looking at the graph. I feel like by "include all the data" you mean "offer commentary on every data point"</quote> Monmouth's table includes all the data. Your bolded statement does not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:13:15 PM #85:	Anteaterking posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... I refer you to post #8 where I included all of the data. The only additional thing I could've done would be to include sentences saying "from January to February, this metric rose/fell by X%" which would've been just pointless verbiage since you can easily see all of that by looking at the graph. I feel like by "include all the data" you mean "offer commentary on every data point" Monmouth's table includes all the data. Your bolded statement does not. True, it would've been accurate for me to point to post #8 rather than the bolded post. But ultimately the bolded post is the same as post #8 except without having a sentence for each metric over each month lol. I hate to be pedantic, so I'll just agree that you're right on the bolded sentence not being complete whereas post #8 is. Ultimately it doesn't change anything about what I've been saying in this topic, as Vox isn't interested in any meaningful level of analysis. Because otherwise they'd have to contend with reality rather than just their narrative. shrug --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903951258] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>I refer you to post #8 where I included all of the data. The only additional thing I could've done would be to include sentences saying "from January to February, this metric rose/fell by X%" which would've been just pointless verbiage since you can easily see all of that by looking at the graph. I feel like by "include all the data" you mean "offer commentary on every data point"</quote> Monmouth's table includes all the data. Your bolded statement does not.</quote> True, it would've been accurate for me to point to post #8 rather than the bolded post. But ultimately the bolded post is the same as post #8 except without having a sentence for each metric over each month lol. I hate to be pedantic, so I'll just agree that you're right on the bolded sentence not being complete whereas post #8 is. Ultimately it doesn't change anything about what I've been saying in this topic, as Vox isn't interested in any meaningful level of analysis. Because otherwise they'd have to contend with reality rather than just their narrative. shrug</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_OujiDoza_ 06/25/18 6:13:51 PM #86:	This fluffy character is a fucking snake oil salesman. --- R.I.P. Bilbo-Swaggins: Victim of the CommunistFAQS Regime \|Brian-Dawkins\|http://i.imgtc.com/5yil6xS.jpg. <cite>_OujiDoza_ posted [p:903951300] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>This fluffy character is a fucking snake oil salesman.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BLAKUboy 06/25/18 6:14:39 PM #87:	_OujiDoza_ posted... This fluffy character is a fucking snake oil salesman. A terrible one, sure. --- Aeris dies if she takes more damage than her current HP - Panthera https://signavatar.com/26999_s.png <cite>BLAKUboy posted [p:903951353] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>_OujiDoza_ posted...</cite> <quote>This fluffy character is a fucking snake oil salesman.</quote> A terrible one, sure.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:15:27 PM #88:	Imagine being so bitter and full of hate that you're really going to call me the snake oil salesman and not bat a fucking eyelid at TC or Vox. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903951394] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>Imagine being so bitter and full of hate that you're really going to call me the snake oil salesman and not bat a fucking eyelid at TC or Vox.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 06/25/18 6:21:26 PM #89:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Imagine being so bitter and full of hate that you're really going to call me the snake oil salesman and not bat a fucking eyelid at TC or Vox. Your behavior ITT is pretty unbecoming tbh --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:903951756] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine being so bitter and full of hate that you're really going to call me the snake oil salesman and not bat a fucking eyelid at TC or Vox.</quote> Your behavior ITT is pretty unbecoming tbh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:22:00 PM #90:	Doom_Art posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Imagine being so bitter and full of hate that you're really going to call me the snake oil salesman and not bat a fucking eyelid at TC or Vox. Your behavior ITT is pretty unbecoming tbh There is nothing I've done in this topic to warrant being called a snake oil salesmen. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903951786] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine being so bitter and full of hate that you're really going to call me the snake oil salesman and not bat a fucking eyelid at TC or Vox.</quote> Your behavior ITT is pretty unbecoming tbh</quote> There is nothing I've done in this topic to warrant being called a snake oil salesmen.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/25/18 6:22:24 PM #91:	FLUFFYGERM posted... But ultimately the bolded post is the same as post #8 except without having a sentence for each metric over each month lol. I'm not even claiming you need to state every month to have a meaningful summary of the data. Just that you're acting like "A man threw a baseball in the air. Before he threw it, it was on the ground. After he threw it, it was on the ground again." is a fine summary of the height of the ball through time. FLUFFYGERM posted... Ultimately it doesn't change anything about what I've been saying in this topic, as Vox isn't interested in any meaningful level of analysis. Because otherwise they'd have to contend with reality rather than just their narrative. shrug The only person who isn't able to contend with reality seems to be you, who doesn't seem to be able to accept that since January approval/strong approval has sunk by a lot more than disapproval/strong disapproval and that it's quite reasonable to interpret that as the bill getting less popular. Like when people say "Trump's approval rating is increasing in polling", do you point out to them that he started with +0.1 approval, so any net disapproval isn't an improvement? --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903951820] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> But ultimately the bolded post is the same as post #8 except without having a sentence for each metric over each month lol. </quote> I'm not even claiming you need to state every month to have a meaningful summary of the data. Just that you're acting like "A man threw a baseball in the air. Before he threw it, it was on the ground. After he threw it, it was on the ground again." is a fine summary of the height of the ball through time. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Ultimately it doesn't change anything about what I've been saying in this topic, as Vox isn't interested in any meaningful level of analysis. Because otherwise they'd have to contend with reality rather than just their narrative. shrug</quote> The only person who isn't able to contend with reality seems to be you, who doesn't seem to be able to accept that since January approval/strong approval has sunk by a lot more than disapproval/strong disapproval and that it's quite reasonable to interpret that as the bill getting less popular. Like when people say "Trump's approval rating is increasing in polling", do you point out to them that he started with +0.1 approval, so any net disapproval isn't an improvement?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nomadic View 06/25/18 6:23:31 PM #92:	SK8T3R215 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Also, it appears Antifar's topic title is bullshit yet again. Here is the actual poll data: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061818/ June 2018 on the left, December 2017 on the right. Strongly approve 18% 18% 20% 24% 13% Somewhat approve 16% 22% 21% 20% 13% Somewhat disapprove 14% 15% 16% 13% 12% Strongly disapprove 27% 29% 26% 31% 35% (VOL) Dont know 24% 16% 17% 13% 27% (n) (806) (803) (803) (806) (806) That is the trend from December 2017 on the right to June 2018 on the left. In that time frame, the number of people who strongly approve went from 13% to 18%. The number of people who somewhat approve went from 13% to 16%. The number of people who somewhat disapprove went from 12% to 14%. The number who strongly disapprove DROPPED from 35% to 27%. And the number who don't know dropped from 27% to 24%. So ultimately it's showing that the tax cuts are more popular now. This is why you don't read Vox. --- {}\\{}(o){}\\//{}//=\\{})){}(< \\//{}{{-{}//\\{} {}xxxxxxxx{};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;> <cite>Nomadic View posted [p:903951883] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>SK8T3R215 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Also, it appears Antifar's topic title is bullshit yet again. Here is the actual poll data: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061818/ June 2018 on the left, December 2017 on the right. Strongly approve 18% 18% 20% 24% 13% Somewhat approve 16% 22% 21% 20% 13% Somewhat disapprove 14% 15% 16% 13% 12% Strongly disapprove 27% 29% 26% 31% 35% (VOL) Dont know 24% 16% 17% 13% 27% (n) (806) (803) (803) (806) (806) That is the trend from December 2017 on the right to June 2018 on the left. In that time frame, the number of people who strongly approve went from 13% to 18%. The number of people who somewhat approve went from 13% to 16%. The number of people who somewhat disapprove went from 12% to 14%. The number who strongly disapprove DROPPED from 35% to 27%. And the number who don't know dropped from 27% to 24%. So ultimately it's showing that the tax cuts are more popular now.</quote> This is why you don't read Vox.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 6:25:05 PM #93:	I had to take a later bus cuz I was arguing itt --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903951964] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>I had to take a later bus cuz I was arguing itt</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thronedfire2 06/25/18 6:25:45 PM #94:	Probably because all those people who got $1000 bonuses instead of raises blew through it already while their employers saved millions of dollars --- I could see you, but I couldn't hear you You were holding your hat in the breeze Turning away from me In this moment you were stolen... <cite>thronedfire2 posted [p:903952003] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote>Probably because all those people who got $1000 bonuses instead of raises blew through it already while their employers saved millions of dollars</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:26:40 PM #95:	Balrog0 posted... I had to take a later bus cuz I was arguing itt i took the day off today so i'm home rn --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903952065] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I had to take a later bus cuz I was arguing itt</quote> i took the day off today so i'm home rn</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 06/25/18 6:28:30 PM #96:	Balrog0 posted... I had to take a later bus cuz I was arguing itt --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:903952164] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I had to take a later bus cuz I was arguing itt</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:30:08 PM #97:	Anteaterking posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... But ultimately the bolded post is the same as post #8 except without having a sentence for each metric over each month lol. I'm not even claiming you need to state every month to have a meaningful summary of the data. Just that you're acting like "A man threw a baseball in the air. Before he threw it, it was on the ground. After he threw it, it was on the ground again." is a fine summary of the height of the ball through time. FLUFFYGERM posted... Ultimately it doesn't change anything about what I've been saying in this topic, as Vox isn't interested in any meaningful level of analysis. Because otherwise they'd have to contend with reality rather than just their narrative. shrug The only person who isn't able to contend with reality seems to be you, who doesn't seem to be able to accept that since January approval/strong approval has sunk by a lot more than disapproval/strong disapproval and that it's quite reasonable to interpret that as the bill getting less popular. Like when people say "Trump's approval rating is increasing in polling", do you point out to them that he started with +0.1 approval, so any net disapproval isn't an improvement? It doesn't actually bother me to accept that since January, approvals have decreased faster than disapprovals. Just like it doesn't bother me to accept that the rate of people who say they don't know if they approve/disapprove has surged since January. It almost doubled. Could be a consequence of the mass media's bullshit depiction of the tax cuts for all we know. :D By the way, Breitbart could take the exact same data and publish an article saying "GOP tax cuts are becoming more popular in polling" without omitting the first data point. And then you'd likely be in that topic making the same type of argument about what we say and how we interpret data and whatnot. And I'd agree with you. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903952271] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> But ultimately the bolded post is the same as post #8 except without having a sentence for each metric over each month lol. </quote> I'm not even claiming you need to state every month to have a meaningful summary of the data. Just that you're acting like "A man threw a baseball in the air. Before he threw it, it was on the ground. After he threw it, it was on the ground again." is a fine summary of the height of the ball through time. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Ultimately it doesn't change anything about what I've been saying in this topic, as Vox isn't interested in any meaningful level of analysis. Because otherwise they'd have to contend with reality rather than just their narrative. shrug</quote> The only person who isn't able to contend with reality seems to be you, who doesn't seem to be able to accept that since January approval/strong approval has sunk by a lot more than disapproval/strong disapproval and that it's quite reasonable to interpret that as the bill getting less popular. Like when people say "Trump's approval rating is increasing in polling", do you point out to them that he started with +0.1 approval, so any net disapproval isn't an improvement?</quote> It doesn't actually bother me to accept that since January, approvals have decreased faster than disapprovals. Just like it doesn't bother me to accept that the rate of people who say they don't know if they approve/disapprove has surged since January. It almost doubled. Could be a consequence of the mass media's bullshit depiction of the tax cuts for all we know. :D By the way, Breitbart could take the exact same data and publish an article saying "GOP tax cuts are becoming more popular in polling" without omitting the first data point. And then you'd likely be in that topic making the same type of argument about what we say and how we interpret data and whatnot. And I'd agree with you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 06/25/18 6:30:23 PM #98:	BLAKUboy posted... And this will literally be the GOP's only accomplishment going into November. They will not have a fun midterms. The economy as a whole is better than it has been in decades. There is a tentative peace in Korea. ISIS isn't a thing anymore. All just from doing the opposite of what Dems would do. Hell, the tax cuts we're talking about in this thread have been shit on by the left for months, with literal claims that people were going to die as a result of people being able to keep more of their paycheck. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:903952282] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>BLAKUboy posted...</cite> <quote>And this will literally be the GOP's only accomplishment going into November. They will not have a fun midterms.</quote> The economy as a whole is better than it has been in decades. There is a tentative peace in Korea. ISIS isn't a thing anymore. All just from doing the opposite of what Dems would do. Hell, the tax cuts we're talking about in this thread have been shit on by the left for months, with literal claims that people were going to die as a result of people being able to keep more of their paycheck.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/25/18 6:47:39 PM #99:	FLUFFYGERM posted... By the way, Breitbart could take the exact same data and publish an article saying "GOP tax cuts are becoming more popular in polling" without omitting the first data point. And then you'd likely be in that topic making the same type of argument about what we say and how we interpret data and whatnot. And I'd agree with you. But that's literally what you have been saying is the only correct, objective interpretation for most of this topic --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903953334] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>By the way, Breitbart could take the exact same data and publish an article saying "GOP tax cuts are becoming more popular in polling" without omitting the first data point. And then you'd likely be in that topic making the same type of argument about what we say and how we interpret data and whatnot. And I'd agree with you.</quote> But that's literally what you have been saying is the only correct, objective interpretation for most of this topic</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Iwin2013 06/25/18 6:47:43 PM #100:	thronedfire2 posted... Probably because all those people who got $1000 bonuses instead of raises blew through it already while their employers saved millions of dollars You do know that some people got raises and bonuses, right? --- MAGA 2020 <cite>Iwin2013 posted [p:903953338] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>thronedfire2 posted...</cite> <quote>Probably because all those people who got $1000 bonuses instead of raises blew through it already while their employers saved millions of dollars</quote> You do know that some people got raises and bonuses, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 06/25/18 6:49:42 PM #101:	Balrog0 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... By the way, Breitbart could take the exact same data and publish an article saying "GOP tax cuts are becoming more popular in polling" without omitting the first data point. And then you'd likely be in that topic making the same type of argument about what we say and how we interpret data and whatnot. And I'd agree with you. But that's literally what you have been saying is the only correct, objective interpretation for most of this topic Sorry I meant what I said earlier about how Breitbart could take the same data and publish an article saying "Substantially fewer Americans disapprove of the GOP tax cuts" Anyway --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:903953433] in GOP tax cu... [t:76749528]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>By the way, Breitbart could take the exact same data and publish an article saying "GOP tax cuts are becoming more popular in polling" without omitting the first data point. And then you'd likely be in that topic making the same type of argument about what we say and how we interpret data and whatnot. And I'd agree with you.</quote> But that's literally what you have been saying is the only correct, objective interpretation for most of this topic</quote> Sorry I meant what I said earlier about how Breitbart could take the same data and publish an article saying "Substantially fewer Americans disapprove of the GOP tax cuts" Anyway</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > GOP tax cuts are becoming less popular in polling (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > GOP tax cuts are becoming less popular in polling