Trump

[manlyfan76]

Trump Officially the most un-popular president in history.

So much winning.

 

[Eagle 1]

Trump Officially the most un-popular president in history.

So much winning.

What poll is this from Manlyfan, don't get to excited they said the same thing about Trump just before the last election. Anyway Trumps playing the long game, if true, plenty of time left till the midterms to come roaring back in favour again. And right now the Democrats are in disarray with the radical left of the party seemingly now in charge.🤪

 

[manlyfan76]

What poll is this from Manlyfan, don't get to excited they said the same thing about Trump just before the last election. Anyway Trumps playing the long game, if true, plenty of time left till the midterms to come roaring back in favour again. And right now the Democrats are in disarray with the radical left of the party seemingly now in charge.🤪

Long game? This is his last term . Us presidents can only do two terms.

 

[Eagle 1]

Long game? This is his last term . Us presidents can only do two terms.

As in this term. Polling fluctuates throughout the course of a President's term, Trumps term is no different.

 

[Brookie1973]

What poll is this from Manlyfan, don't get to excited they said the same thing about Trump just before the last election. Anyway Trumps playing the long game, if true, plenty of time left till the midterms to come roaring back in favour again. And right now the Democrats are in disarray with the radical left of the party seemingly now in charge.🤪

It’s endearing the way some people continue to believe in polls that have been consistently and utterly wrong since Trump announced his first run for President. The polling industry is just as susceptible to politicisation as every other industry, in fact, probably more so. I suspect it now exists to simply give people hope and encouragement to hang in there.

 

[Eagle 1]

It’s endearing the way some people continue to believe in polls that have been consistently and utterly wrong since Trump announced his first run for President. The polling industry is just as susceptible to politicisation as every other industry, in fact, probably more so. I suspect it now exists to simply give people hope and encouragement to hang in there.

So true, when Trump won the so called Blue wall seats, the Polls didn't give Trump a chance in he'll of winning just one let alone all of them. Since then I've taken US polling with a grain of salt.

 

[manlyfan76]

As in this term. Polling fluctuates throughout the course of a President's term, Trumps term is no different.

So he's playing the long game on popularity?

Of course it fluctuate, right now it's the worse ever.

 

[Brookie1973]

So true, when Trump won the so called Blue wall seats, the Polls didn't give Trump a chance in he'll of winning just one let alone all of them. Since then I've taken US polling with a grain of salt.

Manipulated “polling” is a great way to delegitimise an elected President you think is a dictator, whilst legitimising active “resistance”. Not that that is what is going on here obviously.

 

[Eagle 1]

So he's playing the long game on popularity?

Of course it fluctuate, right now it's the worse ever.

I'm glad you agree with me that Polling does fluctuate.

 

[Brookie1973]

I'm glad you agree with me that Polling does fluctuate.

Problem is, it only seems to fluctuate one way, until election day.

 

[Uber Eagle 72]

Problem is, it only seems to fluctuate one way, until election day.

Same happened here is Australia during the last election. Polls even had Liberal ahead of Labor in 2024 polls only to be later smashed during the election.

 

[lsz]

The rhetoric from the left is terrible

https://twitter.com/x/status/1969897421523357977

 

[Brookie1973]

It would be great if at some stage in the future, leftists leaders had the courage of their convictions and were open and honest about their hatred of the west, rather than using its freedoms, democratic institutions and way of life as a protective shield whilst destroying it from within.

Why can’t leftist leaders just be honest and open with the people and admit they;

• hate democracy (too many uneducated and ill-informed voters)
• consider socialism/marxism a better economic model than capitalism (too many of the wrong kind of billionaires)
• are against nation states and enforcement of national borders (mass uncontrolled migration being a necessary prerequisite for global socialism)
• see the destruction of the middle class as a desired and necessary step to global socialism controlled by the global “elite”
• consider violent resistance to political opponents justified given all the above

Let’s stop this charade of leftist political parties still representing the interests of the nation states they purport to care about. Only then can we have an honest debate about what model the people prefer, rather than have it surreptitiously imposed by stealth. Just my opinion.

 

[manlyfan76]

CPAP ramping up their imported BS here

Decoding "centre right"

At the weekend's CPAC conference in Brisbane, speakers continually referred to themselves as "centre right". Don't accept the label for an authoritarian, and bloody, ideology.

substack.com

 

[lsz]

I watched the majority of the Charlie Kirk memorial.

While there was some truly bizarre behaviour you have to admire Erika Kirk and her ability to forgive

https://twitter.com/x/status/1969893378151325863

Lets hope the other speakers can take some guidance from her

 

[Brookie1973]

Yes, hopefully the Presidents words can put an end to all the rioting and destruction MAGA have been doing since the assassination.

 

[Brookie1973]

Interesting.

 

[h27272727]

Saw an analysis of the stats, trans are FIVE times less likely than average white male to do a shooting.

That’s fairly unsurprising, although off the bat even that sounds a bit too high. I’m interested to test it out so I’ll try do a bit of analysis myself to compare.

From Reuters (first site I viewed that contained some relevant data, focused on mass shooting events):

First off, 0.5% of adults in the US identify as trans (~1.74 million). Males roughly 49% of the population (~170 million).

The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) define a mass shooting as 4+ people injured or killed. Since 2013, they analysed 4400 mass shootings. 5 perpetrators were trans (0.114%). Without opening the excel dataset myself I couldn’t see the corresponding % by males. Will instead approximate based off the second dataset mentioned in this article.

US secret service national threat assessment centre (NTAC) defined mass shootings as cases with 3+ hurt or killed. From 2016, 173 cases analysed. 167 male (96.5%), 3 trans and 3 female (1.7% each). Notably this dataset is skewed by a much smaller sample size / more influenced by statistical outliers. That is, the sample size of the first dataset (4400) is 25 times larger than the second (173).

Assuming ratio female:male approximately constant, you could compare the trans rates between datasets and re-weight the second one. Doing that we’d really expect the actual male rate to be closer to 98.1%. edit * Violence Prevention Project (Hamlin University) estimated 98% of shootings attributed to male, female under 2% and trans << 1%. *

Anyways, for the sake of this post ill take the more conservative figure (males accounting for roughly 96% of the 4400 mass shootings since 2013). In terms of the male population, that’s a rate of r=0.96*4400/(170)=24.8 mass shooting events by males (per million males).

For the trans mass shooting rate, we can directly use information from the first dataset.

It works out that the rate is r= 0.00114*4400/(1.74)=2.88 mass shootings by trans people (per million trans people)

That is, trans people were 8.6 times less likely to commit mass murder than males over the period 2014-2025.

This tends to line up with the analysis you came across elsewhere. Therefore, it appears reasonable that trans people are (at least) 5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than males. My value of 8.6 based off initial analysis of mass shooting data indicates that this may even be underestimating it (by 72% in this case). But 5 at least appears to be a fairly safe lower-bound estimate.

Another interesting stat I came across: American Medical Association found in 2019 that transgender people are 2.5 times more likely to be a victim of violence (haven’t checked if gun violence or just general) compared to cisgender people (people who identify with their biological gender). This, despite accounting for only 0.114% of the population… Wouldn't terribly surprise me. Trans/gay people are the first victims that come to mind when I think of school bullies and the like.

By this logic, it wouldn’t be statistically relevant if 100% of transgenders became shooters, because they would still be 4-5 times less likely to become shooters than the poor old white males.

Came across this after posting. My post above sort of clarifies the question on statistical relevance.

i.e. rates of violence - in this case mass shootings - must be normalised over the population to meaningfully compare the data. Here, the rate of mass shooters/million males was compared to the rate of mass shooters/million trans people. If 100% of transgender people became (mass) shooters then the resulting rate would be 1 million mass shooters per 1 million trans people, while males would have their own number (allowing direct comparison of magnitude, as opposed to relative percentages without context of sample/population size).

 

[h27272727]

What poll is this from Manlyfan, don't get to excited they said the same thing about Trump just before the last election. Anyway Trumps playing the long game, if true, plenty of time left till the midterms to come roaring back in favour again. And right now the Democrats are in disarray with the radical left of the party seemingly now in charge.🤪

I just have two follow-ups here and am holding off any judgement

i) who makes up the ‘radical left’ of the party?
ii) what is your reasoning behind them being radical? (can you also clarify a bit on what you mean by radical in this context?)

Traditionally, ‘radical left’ refers to people who want to make a radical change to the system of governance (eg. for left-wing; private ownership to public ownership / transferring economic control to the people over the state). The way it is being used lately (at least the way i have been reading it) is more in line with the way people describe radical extremist groups (or suicide bombers, terrorist hijackers, mass shooters at places of religious worship, etc). Is it more the former or latter for you and when did you start feeling that way?

I think the Democrat party are fairly centrist (certainly would fall into the category of centre or centre-right here in Australia and we're not extreme in any real way). Bernie Sanders and Mamdani sometimes mention ideas of social democracy; so I suppose they are the closest to 'radical'. Yet I also believe this is largely a result of perception. I've watched a bit of Bernie's youtube content of late and its worth a look (he's been going to some Republican towns). He's been consistently warning against Oligarchy for decades, yet has been let down by the Democrats and villanised at times by the Republicans. In my view w.r.t Oligarchy, they have now arrived there.

The furthest extent of these w.r.t 'radical' is really just funding systems such as healthcare by taxing wealthy people a larger rate. When you think about it it's no more than a mild form of the NRL salary cap (although I doubt they'd enforce any sort of hard cap per se.).

Context is pretty key imo as the US are the richest country in the world yet have a major, growing wealth divide (median - i.e. middle - household income is just $78,538 USD). Simultaneously, Elon Musk aspires to soon be a trillionaire . I think their democracy is threatened more by ignoring the wealth divide, growing consolidation of corporate ownership and the continued corporatisation of politics (enabling political sponsorships and donations; stemming back to the 80s). Some interesting info / stats:

"Harvard PhD student Spencer Yongwook Kwon, Chicago Booth’s Yueran Ma, and Leibniz Institute for Financial Research’s Kaspar Zimmermann find that the trend has been in place for a century. They calculate that since the 1930s, the share of the US economy dominated by the top 1 percent of companies (when sorted by assets) has increased to 90 percent, up from 70 percent. Meanwhile, the asset share of the top 0.1 percent of companies has risen to 88 percent, up from 47 percent."​

​

Also, "In the first quarter of 2025, almost two-thirds percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth."​

​

And the percent share of net worth by the top 0.1% has increased from 8.8% (percent aggregate) in 2003 to 14% in 2025 (60% increase).​

 

[Buddy Love]

Trump vetoing the rubbish palestine state hahahaaaaa thank you Mr. PRESIDENT!

Get rid of the UN ! Free Israel 🇮🇱