Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Er, you cannot not dictate what the debate is, just because it does not suit your agenda.

And the bit of your quote I have bolded... Why have you asked the entire country? :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 10:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------

Which is even more telling on the failing corrupt Democrats. :rolleyes:

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

If that's a valid poll then yes of course.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

To avoid any ambiguity, the definition of country being asked is the US not UK. Doubtless there are other indicators of success than approval ratings but it's seen as a key indicator which shouldn't be discarded because it's an inconvenient truth.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Er US, is the USA. :dunce:

What part of I don't accept nor do I trust opinion polls, do you not understand ?

Polls can be and have been wrong in recent times and completely off the mark.

They can also be manipulated to suit the pathetic liberal media. :rolleyes:

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Thanks, lol, sorry I should have said UK not USA my bad. Have now corrected.
Some polls can be close, some can be wrong. There's been so many over a long period of time as that site has analysed that we can't simply explain this away in the way that you do. Being generous, your approach might explain a single poll but not hundreds.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I'm confused as to why you have brought the UK in this debate. I've not brought them up, nor was discussing them?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Maybe a misunderstanding between us. You said "Why have you asked the entire country?" so I wanted to clarify which country the polls were asking.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Well, since we are discussing the U.S President, I thought when I mentioned country, it was obvious which country I was referring to. ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Oops, New York Times at it again with Fake News. This time upsetting Vice President Mike Pence, suggesting he is going to run against Trump in 2020 U.S Election.

Mike Pence has issued a statement saying the NYT article is 'Disgraceful and offensive and the allegations are categorically false.'

https://twitter.com/VP

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

No. They didn't say he was running against Trump, they said he was getting ready to run if Trump did not. People can just read for themselves: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/u...sse-pence.html

Anyway is this another of NYTimes 'fake news' articles before it's confirmed? Like Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador? Or Corney's Memos? Between Trump and the NYTimes only one of them keeps getting found out for lying.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I just saw Pence's tweet and reacted to it, I don't read the liberal gutter press, NYT if I can help it. I certainly didn't read this shoddy story. They are clearly still wrong with the article either way, given Pence's tweet.

I avoid their crap all the time. Even more so now with their actions with the Manchester Arena Photos and helping to leak our intelligence, they have no ethics. A gutter press organisation, that made it personal by publishing those photos of my city, when it was in it's moment of need.

Btw, I've noticed you keep referring to James Comey, as Corney, it is Comey not Corney. Although I prefer Corny for him actually for the 'corny' investigations he undertook.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Or Pence is covering himself. The object of a story denying it is not proof it's wrong. Politicians deny stuff all the time.

I agree they shouldn't have published the photos but their reporting record is very good. We need more news organisations like the NYTimes as opposed to the alternative media we seem to get now. People who research and break stories.

My bad.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Just so it's clear, I'm no fan of these 'Alternative facts' sites, I think majority of the time and their headlines are just 'click bait'.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Spot on. We need more organisations with robust finances like The New York Times that hold presidents of all parties to account rather than poorly-resourced click bait titles or overtly biased media like the Washington Examiner, RT and Fox News that prefer to peddle a line at the expense of journalistic values.
My worry is how pretty objective titles like the New York Times can thrive in the future as the world gets more partisan and people just want to hear echo chambers of their political party confirming their views and prejudices.
We're fortunate in the UK to have authoritative titles like The Times, The Telegraph, The Financial Times and The Guardian that although have their own editorial viewpoints, have the resources and integrity to investigate matters. We also have strong regulations on the impartiality of TV news reporting. I don't think they stopped the BBC from being more like the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation in Spring/Summer 2016 but they are a good idea.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Plee=nty of reports from staffers denying it before Pence issued a statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...administration

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-2...n-trump-646994

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-insists-will/

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...shful-thinking

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I can only see one staffer - his press secretary.

I don't even think it's that outrageous a suggestion that the VP is plotting a path to the nomination in the event the President doesn't run. Trump winning may have been a shock to political assumptions but not the extent it's killed off political ambition.

The interesting part, which is backed by quotes from Republicans happy to be named, is that there is a buzz and movement on nominees for 2020 at all.



---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

The Telegraph and The Guardian have gone down the pan. Too many opinion articles and click-bait as opposed to news. Both have fired so many reporters. The Times and the FT are good.