ChrisWeigant.com

The Life Cycle Of A Trump Conspiracy Theory

[ Posted Monday, March 20th, 2017 – 17:19 PDT ]

Donald Trump will doubtlessly go down in history as many things, but what we're all coming to grips with right now (a bare two months into his presidency) is that Trump will also surely be remembered as the first "Conspiracy-Theorist-In-Chief" in American history. Trump, in fact, personifies the old adage: "I've made up my mind -- don't confuse me with the facts!" This was on full display today, as the heads of the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. testified before a House committee that there is simply no evidence whatsoever that can in any way, shape, or form validate the wild claim Trump made two weeks ago -- that Barack Obama had personally wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. This adds to a long list of people (who all have the highest security clearance and full access to such things), all of whom have now said the same thing: no evidence exists whatsoever to back up Trump's bizarre accusation. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

But after watching many hours of the live testimony this morning and (for good measure) a large portion of Sean Spicer's press conference today at the White House, I'll leave it to others to point out all the nuances of Trump being totally and completely denied any shred of vindication. Instead, I'd like to take a wider look at the life cycle each one of these Trumpian flights of fancy seems to take. Because so far there have been no real groundshaking consequences to any of Trump's conspiracy theorizing, but that might not always be true in the future. What happens if he gets a bee in his bonnet about North Korea, or China, or Iran? Or the Illuminati, for that matter? What happens when one of these Trump temper tantrums causes an international incident? Accusing a former president of felonious behavior is going to pale in comparison, should that come to pass.

Trump's belief in the sheerest conspiracy theories should really come as no surprise, except maybe to those who deluded themselves into believing that Trump would, at some point, make the grand pivot into "being more presidential." This, obviously, is just never going to happen. Trump is Trump, for better or worse. He's the same Trump who spent a whole lot of time being the most visible and vocal advocate of the conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawai'i, and was therefore somehow an illegitimate president. This whole idea was nonsense on many levels, not the least of which was that Obama still would have been a "natural-born citizen" of the U.S.A. no matter where on Earth he had been born. The entire Republican Party even admitted as much last year, when they allowed Ted Cruz to run for their nomination, despite the fact that Cruz was born in Canada. But birtherism was never all that grounded in reality in any case. This simply didn't matter to Trump, who gleefully led the media around by the nose for way too long a period of time on this non-issue.

Trump, as mentioned, has only been president for two months. If he lasts his entire term, we've still got 46 more months of this, folks. Just in his first two months on the job, Trump has spouted so many conspiracy theories it's getting hard to keep up. Now, some of these can be excused as nothing short of unfounded bragging (where no bragging is justified), such as Trump's insistence that he had won "the biggest electoral victory since Ronald Reagan." This one, in particular, wasn't even close to being true, since a factual statement on the size of Trump's Electoral College win would be: "Donald Trump won the biggest electoral victory since Ronald Reagan, except for every other president since Reagan except George W. Bush." George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all beat Trump's total, in other words. Trump does like to brag, though, and he doesn't really care whether he's got a factual leg to stand on or not. Most of the time, this is patently obvious, as when he called the reception he got at a speech he gave at the C.I.A. "the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning won the Super Bowl." It's pretty easy to see right through statements like that, in other words (I'd wager pretty much the end applause at every single rock-n-roll show ever held was, in fact, far bigger and warmer than what Trump got -- every opera performance, too, now that I think about it). But Trump's always got to be the biggest and best at everything (in his own mind), no matter how absurd the claim sounds to the rest of us.

Chest-thumping aside, though, Trump also has the propensity to toss out real conspiracy theories, and it's getting more and more worrisome. So let's take a quick look at the timeline of how these Trump tall tales play out. Not every Trump conspiracy theory touches all these bases, but by now the general pattern is becoming fairly clear.

 

Outrageous statement of conspiracy theory as fact, with no proof

This usually seems to happen in the wee hours of the morning, as Trump tweets his way into each new day. This isn't always the case, as sometimes it does happen later in the day, but no matter when it happens, Trump asserts something as hard, cold fact with absolutely nothing to back it up.

 

Claims of insider knowledge

Sometimes this accompanies the original statement, and sometimes there's a lag time, but Trump can usually be counted on to offer up some version of: "I've got the real scoop, and -- believe me -- you'd be shocked if you knew what I already know."

 

Don't believe your lyin' eyes

The most ludicrous part of the early phases of a Trump conspiracy theory is when Trump attempts to refute actual evidence by stating baldly that photographs (or other physical proof) simply cannot be believed, because they do not match up with what Trump is certain is true. The most laughable of these was the first Trump conspiracy theory of his presidency -- that somehow two million people showed up to see his inauguration, even though every single photo from every single source showed a crowd so small as to be pathetic, compared with other presidents' inaugurations. The photos, Trump (and his minions) were quick to point out, simply could not be trusted, since they didn't validate Trump's version of reality.

 

Facts are for wimps

If there isn't immediate photographic evidence which disproves Trump, there is usually a period when the fact-checkers and the media look into whatever wild claim Trump is making. This has, universally, led to some combination of either facts being uncovered that solidly disprove Trump, and/or absolutely zero facts being uncovered (by anybody) which would affirmatively prove Trump's claims. When presented with such facts (or lack thereof), Trump immediately blames the media for being in on the conspiracy against his version of reality. It's all the media's fault, in other words.

 

Promises to investigate fully

This is usually the point that Trump will grandly call for a sweeping investigation into his nonsensical claims. If Trump is lucky, this is quickly ignored by everyone concerned, and the story then fades into the background. This is precisely what has happened with one of the wilder conspiracy theories Trump has so far made, that three million (or maybe five million) people illegally voted in the presidential election in the widest voter fraud ever seen in America, and that of those millions of votes, they all -- every single one! -- went for Hillary Clinton. Trump used this one to explain why he was beaten so badly in the popular vote. He then loudly called for Congress to investigate, and nothing's been heard of this conspiracy theory since (after Congress pointedly ignored him).

 

Painful redefinition of terms

At some point, Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway or some other Trump toady makes a rather pathetic (and painful to watch) attempt at hammering reality into fitting the bizarre mold of Trump's conspiracy theory. You see, all you need to do is to massively restate and redefine what Trump actually said (or tweeted), and then you can (kinda, sorta) match it up to some real-world facts. "Trump was actually talking about how many people were watching on television and not the crowd on the National Mall -- problem solved!"

 

Declaration that Trump has been right all along

This usually comes from Trump himself, but sometimes he farms it out to his underlings. "Trump was right (using our newly-created restatement and redefinition), and everybody else (including the lying media and all their fake news) was wrong. End of story." Nothing to see here, folks.

 

Casual references by Trump as if his conspiracy theory was real

Trump himself will eventually ignore all these carefully constructed redefinitions and restatements, and just comment off-the-cuff how he was vindicated and how everyone knows that his original statement was 100 percent true. Just as he did a few days ago with Angela Merkel on the wiretapping charge, in fact.

 

Rinse and repeat

After this whole cycle has been run, Trump will insist until the end of time that he was right and everyone else was just being mean to him by contradicting any wild-eyed thing he believes. He's never going to apologize to anyone, he's never even going to admit he was wrong in any way. That's just not in his psychological makeup. The only thing that will stop the questions is the next wild conspiracy theory Trump decides to uncork.

 

As I said, not every Trump tall tale goes through each and every one of these stages. Sometimes a few are skipped. Sometimes Trump himself is the one who just clams up and refuses to talk about it any more. You can tell he still believes he's right, but he's learned that the entire rest of the universe just laughs at him when he says so. This was on full display during the campaign, when Trump never definitively answered the question of whether he fully believes that Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i. Trump would shrug his shoulders and drop tiny hints that everyone else had been fooled, but he wouldn't come right out and go full birther. That's as close as Trump's ever going to get to admitting that he was wrong all along.

President Donald Trump is going to continue running this playbook for as long as a certain segment of the public allows him to get away with it. There are plenty of Trump voters who believe Trump over any and all hard evidence to the contrary, and so far he hasn't paid any real political price for dabbling in conspiracy theories. He could make the most outrageous statements you can imagine, and some will believe it no matter what else they hear in response. Picture Trump in the pre-dawn hours, at some point in the near future, tweeting out:

Little green men FROM OUTER SPACE have INVADED America! This is no joke! We are under attack!!!

Any sane person would tend not to believe that, of course. When asked to defend it, Sean Spicer would be forced to initially report: "President Trump says he has seen intelligence reports that indicate that an alien invasion is actually taking place, and he's calling for a full investigation into this dire situation." The media frenzy which followed would be hard to even imagine, but every rock would be turned over all the way back to the Roswell incident, you can be sure of that. After a few days of digging, absolutely nothing would be uncovered except perhaps the fact that Trump has always been a big fan of The X-Files and that he's always loved the president in the movie Independence Day. Other than that, nothing. Spicer would, at this point, be under enormous pressure to offer any sort of sane explanation for Trump's extraordinary claim. Some rather outrageous and jaw-dropping spin would be attempted as a result, after much brainstorming by the press office. I could easily see Spicer announcing something along the lines of:

By "little," President Trump was really saying "shorter than average." By "green" he actually meant "a person of color, perhaps from Mexico, who eats too many avocados." And by "from outer space," Trump was obviously talking about aliens such as illegal aliens -- the same term the U.S. government uses for Mexicans in this country without proper papers, I should point out. So what the president was actually saying was that illegal aliens from Mexico -- some of them shorter than average -- have indeed invaded this country, since we haven't build the big, beautiful wall on our border yet. I don't know why anyone would read the president's tweet any differently, since he's obviously making a point about immigration and the need for a southern border wall -- in fact, no other interpretation of his words is even remotely possible. The president does consider America to be under attack, and he also considers it to be no joking matter. Next question.

This would be followed (after a certain amount of time passes) by Trump himself either casually making a reference in a public event or via a casual followup tweet. In doing so, Trump would either forget or just ignore the carefully constructed house-of-cards redefinition that his team worked so hard to create out of whole cloth:

I've seen many reports about little green men in the news. I'm not the only one talking about aliens from space, believe me. Even the fake news is reporting on it. Everybody knows that there's an alien invasion underway, but with all the fantastic generals we have at the Pentagon, we have now been successful in fighting this invasion off, and they now all fully assure me that there are no little green men from outer space left in America at all. We've won the war, people, and by doing so we've made America great again!

And that'd be all Trump would have to say about that. If the media continued to hound and ridicule Trump over the issue, then he would just wake up one morning and decide to tweet something even more outrageous, as a fresh distraction. And then the Trump conspiracy theory life cycle would begin anew, with an even-crazier fantasy for everyone to chase after. Until Trump pays any sort of political price for doing so, we should all expect this rinse-and-repeat cycle to continue, sad to say.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

62 Comments on “The Life Cycle Of A Trump Conspiracy Theory”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    I'd read about a woman who'd used the "parental controls" on her Grandma's TV to block FOX News because her Grandma had become hostile, hateful and horrible. She said her Grandma had always been a conservative, but not a spiteful, screaming nut. After a few weeks withdrawel, her Grandma now watches Animal Planet and has returned to the sweet-though-still-conservative old lady she used to be.

    We have a President who is the same as anyone's elderly relative/friend that got hooked on FOX and/or other rightwing outlets. They believe conspiracies, distrust all other news sources, and become huge pains in the neck for their unfortunate family/friends.

  2. [2] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Nice Disection CW-

    I would posit that perhaps Trump is using his little conspiracies to suck all of the oxygen out of the news cycle to distract from all of the other bad news that would be coming out.

    Just look at the pages for today for all of the big news groups (conservative and liberal alike) the Comey hearing and the whole clarification that there is no evidence of surveillance and the admission of the investigation, took focus away from the Gorsuch hearing.

    Then there is the fact the congress in it's infinite wisdom decided that people who cannot manage their own affairs should be able to buy guns...or how about the house disapproving and repealing the Washington D.C. death with dignity act, The repeal of the Dodd-Frank requirement for Resource extractors to disclose payments to governments for the mining/drilling rights. What about the house repealing the HHS rule governing family planning grants?

    Sure none of the stuff congress is up to right now is blazingly exciting but one has to wonder if it would be reported on more if it weren't for the news crack that is a Trump conspiracy theory. Would the coverage of the Gorsuch hearing have been more prominent....How would that shpe peoples opinions?

    The media has shown Trump that all it takes is one wild tweet and the focus is on that issue, which takes the focus off of the rest of the picture.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Donald Trump: A guy who believes that accumulation of wealth is the true sign of a man's worth, who easily takes both sides of any issue for political expediency while his true loyalty lies with himself, a confident con no matter which side he's taking, and the biggest threat to our country coming not from without, but from within, a guy who fancies himself a true patriot but who'd turn coat on America and her people in order to satisfy his insatiable greed and lust for power and title... a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

    Benedict Donald

    "Little green men"? *LOL*

    At what point do the sheeple finally clue in?

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The dog is drinking out of Trump's approval rating.

  5. [5] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Remind me again how "Until Trump pays any sort of political price" works, when as you say "There are plenty of Trump voters who believe Trump over any and all hard evidence to the contrary."

    I'm sure Trump is convinced that he is president today because of, not despite, the behavior you've so carefully analyzed here. This is much to the confusion of a large liberal, educated, and elite segment of the electorate, to say the least - who've been predicting the "political price" thing since the Wall was first mentioned. I remember when his saying McCain wasn't a hero was deemed the kiss of death by the commentariat: political price, coming right up. ... or not. Not.

    Either "paying a political price" is a meaningless phrase that doesn't actually describe how presidential power works, or analysts have no idea what they're talking about when they criticize this president. Don't get me wrong: I agree with you that this is bizarre and frightening behavior, and will be dangerous when the boy who cried wolf finally tries to convince the nation that he 'really means it this time' about a serious threat (I for one won't be listening). But it does seems idle to, essentially, scold the media and the public for not punishing Trump yet for behavior they've been rewarding him for all this time.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/breitbart-and-infowars-under-investigation-for-ties-to-russia-report/

    Federal investigators are examining whether far-right news sites played any role last year in a Russian cyber operation that dramatically widened the reach of news stories — some fictional — that favored Donald Trump's presidential bid, two people familiar with the inquiry say.

    Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as "bots," to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said.

    The bots' end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said. Some of the stories were false or mixed fact and fiction, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the bot attacks are part of an FBI-led investigation into a multifaceted Russian operation to influence last year's elections.

    You know, the kind of crap Michale spews, right on schedule.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hey, here's something fun for regular readers. Check out this link and scroll down to the very bottom of the story (the bit about Clarence Page).

    Now check out the photo credit.

    :-)

    I've had articles reposted more times than I can count, but I think this is the first time someone asked to use one of my photos...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    One more thing about that photo, for those who recognize the symbol:

    "We are everywhere."

    Heh. Peace, man.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "Little green aliens?"

    Short "tree-hugging" Mexicans.

    45's belief that he got a standing ovation at the CIA is just too funny to me. The idiot didn't realize that it was his responsibility to instruct them to be seated!!!

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    Say "Hello" from us the next time you meet Clarance, CW :)

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    Dammit - Clarence! (typo)

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    You know, the kind of crap Michale spews, right on schedule.

    You mean the kind of crap that I spewed that Donald Trump was going to be President??

    Or the kind of crap that ya'all spewed that NOT-45 was going to win in a 50-state landslide???

    :D

    Ya'all call it "crap"..

    But in reality, it's nothing but facts.. :D

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    I would posit that perhaps Trump is using his little conspiracies to suck all of the oxygen out of the news cycle to distract from all of the other bad news that would be coming out.

    And the media and the Left Whinery fall for it and get played over and over and over again..

    Gods, isn't President Trump a genius!! :D

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Or maybe you mean the kind of crap that you spew when you take an alleged Right Winger and try to blame the entirety of Trump supporters for his/her actions...

    It's hard to tell which "crap" you actually mean because there is so much coming from ya'all...

    Irregardless, the simple FACT is that President Trump is YOUR president and there is absolutely nothing you can say or do that will change it..

    Being full of hysterical hate won't solve anything and just proves how utterly decimate and devastated ya'all Democrats are...

    All the hate and spewage is nothing but symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    And, as the facts clearly show, it's 20x more virulent than Obama Derangement Syndrome ever was...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Hey, here's something fun for regular readers. Check out this link

    Donna Brazile Flatly Denies Giving Questions to Hillary Clinton

    Democrats.. hrrummp.. What liars... And the outcry from Weigantians over this blatant lie??

    {{chhiiirrrrpppp}} {{chhiiirrrrrpppppp}}

    Yea... That's what I thought.. :^/

    and scroll down to the very bottom of the story (the bit about Clarence Page)

    Nice, CW!! National exposure... :D

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    This adds to a long list of people (who all have the highest security clearance and full access to such things), all of whom have now said the same thing: no evidence exists whatsoever to back up Trump's bizarre accusation. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

    But the funny thing is this..

    Those SAME exact people ALSO said that there is NONE... ZERO... ZIP... ZILCH evidence that anyone from Team Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election..

    So, this begs the question..

    Why is it that ya'all believe those people when they say something ya'all want to hear..

    But you DIS-BELIEVE them when they say something ya'all DON'T want to hear..

    Which is why I find it hard to take seriously any rantings ya'all have against President Trump..

    Because I know that, with a few notable exceptions, yer rants are borne from NOTHING but hysterical partisan bigotry and severe cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    WILL RUSSIAGATE BACKFIRE ON THE LEFT?

    The big losers of the Russian hacking scandal may yet be those who invested all their capital in a script that turned out to based on a fairy tale.

    In Monday’s House Intelligence Committee hearings, James Comey did confirm that his FBI has found nothing to support President Trump’s tweet that President Obama ordered him wiretapped. Not unexpected, but undeniably an embarrassment for the tweeter-in-chief.

    Yet longer-term damage may have been done to the left. For Monday’s hearing showed that its rendering of the campaign of 2016 may be a product of fiction and a fevered imagination.

    After eight months investigating the hacking and leaking of the emails of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta and the DNC, there is apparently no evidence yet of Trump collusion with Russia.

    Former Director of National Intelligence Gen. James Clapper has said that, as of his departure day, Jan. 20, he had seen no evidence of a Russia-Trump collusion.

    Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell also made that clear this month: “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. … There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.” Morell was a surrogate for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    But while the FBI is still searching for a Trump connection, real crimes have been unearthed – committed by anti-Trump bureaucrats colluding with mainstream media – to damage Trump’s presidency.

    There is hard evidence of collusion between the intel community and the New York Times and the Washington Post, both beneficiaries of illegal leaks – felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

    While the howls have been endless that Trump accused Obama of a “felony,” the one provable felony here was the leak of a transcript of an intercepted conversation between Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
    -http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/will-russiagate-backfire-on-the-left/#zJ8j1TTSKw5CtoLC.99

    The Left Whinery have been screaming hysterically since President Trump was elected about Team Trump collusion with the Russians..

    I mean, if ya'all want to talk about de-bunked and totally bullshit conspiracy theories, let's talk about THAT one..

    No????

    Didna think so... Why am I not surprised.. :D

    Ya'all get caught supporting a HUGE Left Whinery lie so ya'all are trying to deflect attention from that bogus conspiracy by blaming President Trump for some imagined slight...

    But facts are facts people...

    You can't ignore the facts just because they paint the entirety of the Left Whinery in a bad light..

    Notable exception is our very own Altohone.. He has constantly driven home the fact that the Left Whinery had absolutely NO FACTS to support their hysterical accusations and that it was simply a way to extenuate the FACT that NOT-454 was an abysmally corrupt and incompetent candidate...

    Credit where credit is due...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    And, of course, no one wants to talk about the fact that the Trump Administration has bent the will of the G20 and forced the group to accept the AMERICA FIRST platform..

    :D

    What a great time to be an American!!! :D

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    45's Disapproval Rating is going into record territory. Even Rasmussen is regularly giving him negative numbers, and they basically found as many right wingers as they could to survey.

    Arnie is right, if this were a TV show he'd be looking for a new job.

    I can't see the next week getting any better. It might be time for Putin to organize a terrorist attack on America by "bad dudes" to turn it around - but that might backfire now that Comey has found a backbone and is standing up to the 45-ers in his ranks.

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    There are many parallels between Trump and Nixon. First and foremost in my mind, "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up."

    Nixon lost control of the public narrative 6 years into his administration. Trump has achieved the same distinction in just 2 months, give or take a bit.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    45's Disapproval Rating is going into record territory. Even Rasmussen is regularly giving him negative numbers, and they basically found as many right wingers as they could to survey.

    Yea, those are the same polls that said NOT-45 was heading for a 50-State sweep...

    It's so cute how you STILL put faith in the polls that have been consistently WRONG.. :D

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    - but that might backfire now that Comey has found a backbone and is standing up to the 45-ers in his ranks.

    Iddn't it funny how Comey has a "backbone" ONLY when he does things that you agree with???

    There's a word for that... :D

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    http://walter.thehill.com/sites/default/files/noleadership-01.jpg

    Like I said...

    The Democrat Party...

    Leaderless, rudderless, brainless and clueless...

    :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    But if ya'all WANT to talk about poll numbers..

    Overall, 40 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 60 percent who viewed it negatively. Republicans were seen similarly, 41 percent favorable to 59 percent unfavorable.
    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/324903-for-democrats-no-clear-leader

    More than half of Democrats view their Party negatively.. :D

    How harry-ass is THAT!!! :D

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    45's Disapproval Rating is going into record territory. Even Rasmussen is regularly giving him negative numbers, and they basically found as many right wingers as they could to survey.

    And even with crappy polls, you STILL quote them wrong..

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar21

    Face reality, my friend..

    The vast majority of patriotic Americans do NOT share your Trump Derangement Syndrome and are very happy with President Trump's job performance...

    These are the facts whether you want to concede them or not...

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    the data you cited don't fit your conclusion.

    even the most favorably skewed poll, which you cited, ranked donald at half in favor, half opposed, with the approval index (strongly approve minus strongly disapprove) 7 points underwater.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

    on the other end of the spectrum, gallup had donald at 39-56, 17 points underwater.

    these polls, like all polls, fluctuate greatly based on the course of events. maybe the plan is working, maybe it isn't, but if you want to be factually accurate you'll need to find a new narrative.

    JL

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    the data you cited don't fit your conclusion.

    I cited the poll that Neil cited..

    The data he cited doesn't fit his conclusion.. I was simply pointing that out..

    these polls, like all polls, fluctuate greatly based on the course of events. maybe the plan is working, maybe it isn't, but if you want to be factually accurate you'll need to find a new narrative.

    It's Neil et al who needs to find a new narrative... The facts clearly support that President Trump is getting shit done... :D

    I realize it's a rough time for the Left....

    But facts are facts...

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But facts are facts...

    factually, neil is right and you're not. except about it being a rough time, not just for the left but for fact checkers.

    JL

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    factually, neil is right and you're not.

    How so??

    Rasmussen shows a 50/50 split.. Hardly "record territory" for disapproval...

    except about it being a rough time, not just for the left but for fact checkers.

    It's an easy time for fact checkers if they didn't have to run things thru their ideological filters...

    But at least we agree it's a rough time for the Left.. :D

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    But it simply proves my point about polls..

    They cannot be trusted and have little to do with reality and the facts...

    If they could and did, we would have a different President right now.. :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    on the other end of the spectrum, gallup had donald at 39-56, 17 points underwater.

    Like I said.. Rasmussen's 50/50 split is hardly "record territory" for disapproval..

    In that, Neil was wrong..

    As I said....

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Little green men?
    Come on. Even Trump knows that aliens from outer space are called Greys because they are grey.

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick -
    "A what point do the sheeple finally clue in?"
    As Michale said in the previous comment thread, everything said about the Trump supporters being conned also applies equally to the Democrats and their refusal to accept that they have also been conned.
    A better question is which group of suckers, if either, will catch on first?

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    As Michale said in the previous comment thread, everything said about the Trump supporters being conned also applies equally to the Democrats and their refusal to accept that they have also been conned.

    Ahhhhh someone was paying attention!!! :D

    "I always listen to you, Max. But you're not always right."
    -Bruce McGill, TIME COP

    :D

  35. [35] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    And, of course, no one wants to talk about the fact that the Trump Administration has bent the will of the G20 and forced the group to accept the AMERICA FIRST platform..

    I would not go as far as to say they bent the will.....considering that just like the security council everyone must be in total agreement....Withholding one vote is all it takes... Far from will bending.

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [24] -

    50% is a "vast majority"???

    Really?

    Heh.

    Trump's numbers have fluctuated in the RCP poll-of-polls. He got as high as 46 percent once, but is now below 44. Please tell me where is the vast majority you speak of...

    :-)

    You like to cite Rasmussen. Fair enough. But Gallup, at the other end of the window, has had Trump as low as 37 percent. That's lower than Obama ever got in his whole 8 years. And it's only been 2 months for Trump...

    Of course, he's still way higher than Dubya's lowest point -- that's something, at any rate, right?

    Heh.

    Don Harris [31] -

    The "LGM" phrase was floating around in reference to something completely different (and I was too lazy to look it up) in the past few weeks. So I just went with it...

    :-)

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Please tell me where is the vast majority you speak of...

    Vast majority of patriotic Americans..

    Ya know.. The ones that the Leftist MSM ignores.. :D

    You like to cite Rasmussen.

    You know me. I don't "like" to cite ANY polls.. I'll tolerate RCP PoPs because it's an average..

    But the simple fact is those polls have a HUGE credibility deficit... You remember what they said in the 2016 election, eh? :D

    Regardless, I only cite Rasmussen because Neil cited Rasmussen...

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    I would not go as far as to say they bent the will.....considering that just like the security council everyone must be in total agreement....Withholding one vote is all it takes... Far from will bending.

    You call it what you want, I call it what I want..

    But the simple fact is, the G20 took a position based on what President Trump wants...

    America First....

    President Trump is keeping his campaign promises...

    Whatta guy!!! :D

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Vast majority of patriotic Americans..

    Ya know.. The ones that the Leftist MSM ignores.. :D

    Yunno.. The ones that the Leftist MSM ignored BEFORE the election??? :D

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/20/democrats-blind-to-real-reason-america-elected-trump.html

  40. [40] 
    goode trickle wrote:
  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/donald-trump-goodfellas-edition

    o there was an FBI wiretap in Trump Tower! Just not placed there by Barack Obama and not targeting Donald Trump. Between 2011 and 2013 the FBI had a court approved warrant to eavesdrop on a Russian organized crime and money laundering operation out of the 63rd floor of Trump Tower...What's left is a guy who almost lost everything and then clawed his way back with a lot of pretty unsavory money. Look at Trump, any of his business partnerships and really anything else and you keep finding Russians with tons of money and frequent attention from the FBI. The idea that Trump associates may have connived with a Russian intelligence operation against the US electoral process is such a shocking and singular possibility that it tends to obscure this pretty shocking set of facts that are pretty much in plain view.

    Trump is a guy who has hung out with criminals for years. Separate from election-colluding, he's a money-laundering mobster-buddy. He's sleezy, skeevy and greedy. The GOP embraced him and he is an idol to a group of gullible, un-American, unpatriotic nincompoops. Shame.

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don [32]

    As Michale said in the previous comment thread, everything said about the Trump supporters being conned also applies equally to the Democrats and their refusal to accept that they have also been conned. A better question is which group of suckers, if either, will catch on first?

    Well, Don, if you're going to agree with Michale that "everything" "applies equally" (your words), I'd say that says more about you than it does anyone else or any Party. If perchance you've confused my use of the term "sheeple" as meaning an entire Party, you're simply mistaken. :)

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    TheStig [19]

    There are many parallels between Trump and Nixon. First and foremost in my mind, "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up."

    As John Dean, Nixon's counsel during Watergate, said:

    "In fact they are in a cover-up mode. There's just never been any question in my mind about that," Dean said. "I've been inside a cover-up. I know how they look and feel. And every signal they're sending is 'we're covering this up.'"

    "This White House is not showing their innocence," he said. "They're showing how damn guilty they are, is what we're seeing."

    Sean Spicer is now stating that Paul Manafort had very little influence on the campaign and characterizing Mike Flynn as "a volunteer."

    Dean characterized this behavior as a red flag and says they seemed to have learned nothing from history.

    "Let me tell you how predictable this is and how cover up-ish it is, because this is exactly what happened during Watergate. For example, when I had broken rank and became a public person out there, suddenly Nixon had never had any meetings with me at all, and then he'd had one or two meetings with me. Well, we had 37 meetings about Watergate, and he knew damn well we had been deep in the thicket of it, but suddenly they distanced themselves from it, and that's exactly what they're doing here."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga03NZrhnZk

    This morning, Kellyanne Conway similarly downplayed Trump's relationships with J.D. Gordon, a national security adviser for the campaign, and Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser on the campaign.

    Nixon lost control of the public narrative 6 years into his administration. Trump has achieved the same distinction in just 2 months, give or take a bit.

    He's setting new records every day, so much so that it seems like he's determined to knock Nixon up a notch on the listings of worst Presidents.

    Will they be able to prove collusion with Russia and Trump World? Time will tell, but there was a time not long ago when the sheeple moaned that Russia had nothing to do with the election whatsoever, and that mantra is fast fading into: but, but, but the Trump campaign wasn't involved... so there's some progress.

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Will they be able to prove collusion with Russia and Trump World? Time will tell, but there was a time not long ago when the sheeple moaned that Russia had nothing to do with the election whatsoever, and that mantra is fast fading into: but, but, but the Trump campaign wasn't involved... so there's some progress.

    There was also a time, not long ago, when the Left Wingery scoffed at the idea that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe...

    Funny how ya'all want to forget about that.. :D

    So, I guess "sheeple" are not limited to the Right, eh? :D

    Well, Don, if you're going to agree with Michale that "everything" "applies equally" (your words), I'd say that says more about you than it does anyone else or any Party. If perchance you've confused my use of the term "sheeple" as meaning an entire Party, you're simply mistaken. :)

    OR.....

    Don called it dead on ballz accurate and you are trying to back-pedal.. :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    If perchance you've confused my use of the term "sheeple" as meaning an entire Party, you're simply mistaken. :)

    While you may or may not have meant an entire Party, it's undeniable that you meant an entire group of people...

    Which is still bigotry...

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump is a guy who has hung out with criminals for years. Separate from election-colluding, he's a money-laundering mobster-buddy. He's sleezy, skeevy and greedy. The GOP embraced him and he is an idol to a group of gullible, un-American, unpatriotic nincompoops. Shame.

    Ahhhhh

    Yer attempts to paint President Trump as a Russian agent/mole have fallen flat, so NOW yer trying to paint President Trump as a mobster... :D

    Do you have ANY FACTS to support this new and exciting accusation??

    No??? Didn't think so....

    I must say, though.. I DO admire your transparency in feeding yer PTDS.. :D

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    GT,

    I would not go as far as to say they bent the will.....considering that just like the security council everyone must be in total agreement...

    And like the Security Council where Obama abstained from preventing the Anti-Israel resolution, the Palestinians bent Obama to their will...

    You got it exactly right....

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay Neil,

    Didn't you quote House Intelligence Chairman Nunes previously as if he was an authority???

    Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration

    Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under surveillance during the Obama administration following November's election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Wednesday.

    Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal, incidental collection and that it does not appear to have been related to concerns over collusion with Russia.

    Nunes is going to the White House later Wednesday to brief the Trump administration on what he has learned, which he said came from "sources."
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366

    Since Nunes is your acknowledged authority, and Nunes says that the Obama Administration WAS surveilling Team Trump...

    Well, I guess we agree that President Trump's tweet about Odumbo surveilling President-Elect Trump was accurate.. :D

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Or is it that Chairman Nunes is ONLY an authority when he says what you want to hear???

    :D

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [43]

    There was also a time, not long ago, when the Left Wingery scoffed at the idea that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe...

    I guess if nothing in the world had happened since Romney described Russia as "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe" to Wolf Blitzer on CNN you'd have a point, but it has... so you don't. Romney went on CNN later to explain that it didn't make Russia "an enemy" and that "they don't represent the No. 1 national security threat."

    ** BLITZER: The last time you and I spoke in an interview, you told me that Russia was America's No. 1 geostrategic foe. Do you still believe that?

    ROMNEY: There's no question but that in terms of geopolitics -- I'm talking about votes at the United Nations and actions of a geopolitical nature -- Russia is the No. 1 adversary in that regard. That doesn't make them an enemy. It doesn’t make them a combatant. They don't represent the No. 1 national security threat. **

    Romney conceded at the time that Russia wasn't "an enemy," but people conveniently forget that fact. At the time Romney made the remark, Russia was not "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe," which is why he revised his remarks later. A lot has happened since that time, and the myth that Romney was right needs to be put to rest since even Romney corrected himself when he made the debatable statement.

    Funny how ya'all want to forget about that.. :D

    Funny how "ya'all" generally can't stay on topic and want to deflect to another argument and funny how "ya'all" want to forget about the fact that at the time he made that statement, Romney walked it back because at that time Russia really didn't fit his description and he knew it.

    So, I guess "sheeple" are not limited to the Right, eh? :D

    Every day is a new day, eh? Nothing from before is retained, eh? Obviously there were Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters who believed Donald Trump's con artistry and lies about [fill in subject here]. Lots of people from all different groups believed Trump's lies -- state the obvious. This has been covered over and over ad nauseam. Are you blissfully unaware that you relitigate the same BS over and over like you have no ability whatsoever at retention?

    OR.....

    Don called it dead on ballz accurate and you are trying to back-pedal.. :D

    OR..... Michale has no ability whatsoever at retention and has to be told the same thing over and over ad nauseam. Obviously, if only Republicans bought into the con, Trump would not be president. This too has been previously discussed. "Funny how ya'all want to forget about that." :)

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess if nothing in the world had happened since Romney described Russia as "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe" to Wolf Blitzer on CNN you'd have a point, but it has... so you don't.

    Ahhhh...

    So, back then, Obama and the Democrats were right..

    NOW, the world has changed so NOW Obama and the Democrats are right again..

    Funny how that always is the case.. :D

    Every day is a new day, eh? Nothing from before is retained, eh? Obviously there were Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters who believed Donald Trump's con artistry and lies about [fill in subject here]. Lots of people from all different groups believed Trump's lies -- state the obvious. This has been covered over and over ad nauseam. Are you blissfully unaware that you relitigate the same BS over and over like you have no ability whatsoever at retention?

    OR...

    YOU are wrong and the President Trump supporters are right..

    Do you concede that THAT is a possibility??

    Of course not... :D

    OR..... Michale has no ability whatsoever at retention and has to be told the same thing over and over ad nauseam.

    Ya'all saying the same thing over and over again does not make it factual..

    Ya'all said over and over again that President Trump would lose the election and that NOT-45 would win in a 50-state sweep..

    Ya'all were WRONG...

    So, why should I believe ya'all have any credibility now??

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    I know, I know.. I harp on that a lot..

    But that's because it's a valid point..

    Ya'all's ENTIRE analysis was colored by ideological and Party blinders...

    And ya'all turned out to be wrong, wrong and WAY wrong..

    So, am I to believe that, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, when ya'all have been dealt a HUMILIATING and DECIMATING blow to ya'all's ideology, ALL OF THE SUDDEN you lose your ideological blinders???

    If anything, ya'all's blinders become MORE prevalent and MORE restricting..

    Give me a SINGLE indication that ya'all aren't driven by Party slavery...

    Just ONE...

    Ya can't...

    And here we are....

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [50]

    Ahhhh...

    So, back then, Obama and the Democrats were right..

    NOW, the world has changed so NOW Obama and the Democrats are right again..

    Funny how that always is the case.. :D

    So you have a reading comprehension problem too, eh?

    I said it was a myth that Romney was right, particularly since he walked back his statement about Russia being "without question" our No. 1 geopolitical foe, and I also characterized it as a debatable statement... probably why it also came up in the third debate. It was Romney's opinion, and he very quickly walked it back at the time. Obama disagreed with Romney's opinion, and Romney then quickly qualified his opinion. It's really not a "right" or "wrong" issue; it's a debatable issue. I don't give a hang who is right or wrong; that's not a hangup of mine.

    Tune in to sometime in the future in a discussion of Russia when you actually deflect to this very same subject using that very same nugget of BS as if it's never before been discussed here. :)

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John M from Ct. [5] -

    First off, my apologies for the long delay. The first comment from new users is always automatically held for moderation (which can take awhile). But from now on, you should be able to post comments and see them instantly.

    Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are also automatically held for moderation (to cut down on comment spam).

    As for the substance of your comment, I'm about to post an article today which may address some of your points, so check it out.

    Everyone else -

    Because of my tardiness in freeing John M from Ct.'s comment from the filter, this means that every comment above [5] has now been renumbered by one. Whoops! So any indications in above comments where a previous comment is referenced by number will be off by one. My apologies to all for the confusion.

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [50]

    OR...

    YOU are wrong and the President Trump supporters are right..

    Do you concede that THAT is a possibility??

    Of course not... :D

    Correct. I don't concede THAT is a possibility because I know for a fact that "President Trump supporters" don't all agree on the same things, and now we're back to the same discussion we've had a thousand times about groupthink.

    Ya'all saying the same thing over and over again does not make it factual..

    It does when it's a fact. FACT: Not every Trump supporter agrees on the same issues. Try to grow out of the idea of groupthink.

    Ya'all said over and over again that President Trump would lose the election and that NOT-45 would win in a 50-state sweep..

    Bullshit. No one here said that HRC would win in a 50-state sweep. Not a single person; THAT is bullshit of your own making.

    Ya'all were WRONG...

    How could anyone be wrong about a 50-state sweep when no one here said there would be a 50-state sweep?

    So, why should I believe ya'all have any credibility now??

    Good question... for which there is a good answer:

    If you actually believe the bullshit you've make up about a 50-state sweep and a myriad of other issues that you've ascribed to others on this board, you obviously couldn't... because you're so far up to your neck in your own bullshit that you genuinely have no idea of your reeking stench. :)

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because of my tardiness in freeing John M from Ct.'s comment from the filter, this means that every comment above [5] has now been renumbered by one. Whoops! So any indications in above comments where a previous comment is referenced by number will be off by one. My apologies to all for the confusion.-CW

    Way to go, John M from Ct.

    Oh, and, welcome to the site. I guess.

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Correct. I don't concede THAT is a possibility because I know for a fact that "President Trump supporters" don't all agree on the same things, and now we're back to the same discussion we've had a thousand times about groupthink.

    If were were talking about all Trump supporters agreeing, you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't.. :D

    It does when it's a fact. FACT: Not every Trump supporter agrees on the same issues. Try to grow out of the idea of groupthink.

    And FACT.. We're not talking about all Trump supporters agreeing..

    We're talking about the fact that ya'all have been wrong about anything to do with Trump time and time and time again...

    So, why should ya'all be believed now??

    How could anyone be wrong about a 50-state sweep when no one here said there would be a 50-state sweep?

    Actually, several people did.. And no one disagreed, so that makes it that everyone agreed that a 50-state sweep was coming...

    I would go find the quotes, but we know how that goes... :D

    If you actually believe the bullshit you've make up about a 50-state sweep and a myriad of other issues that you've ascribed to others on this board, you obviously couldn't... because you're so far up to your neck in your own bullshit that you genuinely have no idea of your reeking stench. :)

    That's your opinion and I respect that.

    But it's an opinion borne of Party slavery and unsupported by facts, so.... :D

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [57]

    If were were talking about all Trump supporters agreeing, you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't.. :D

    It's a new day, and Michale is back to square one like a blank slate, arguing the same tired BS like it hasn't been covered ad nauseam.

    If you don't mind looking like a barking mad fool, by all means... knock yourself out. *LOL* :)

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    It's a new day, and Michale is back to square one like a blank slate, arguing the same tired BS like it hasn't been covered ad nauseam.

    If you don't mind looking like a barking mad fool, by all means... knock yourself out. *LOL* :)

    And again, I don't mind your opinion because I know it's borne of ideological slavery and not real-world facts.. :D

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    It's a new day, and Michale is back to square one like a blank slate, arguing the same tired BS like it hasn't been covered ad nauseam.

    If you don't mind looking like a barking mad fool, by all means... knock yourself out. *LOL* :)

    Have ya ever noticed that, whenever I expose your rational fallacy and back you into a logical corner, you turn around and make the discussion about me, personally.. :D

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [60]

    Have ya ever noticed that, whenever I expose your rational fallacy and back you into a logical corner, you turn around and make the discussion about me, personally.. :D

    What exactly do you think it is when nearly every one of your posts is simply referring to someone as a Party bigot or ideological slave? Do you actually think that referring to someone as a Party bigot or ideological slave in nearly every post is not making it about them personally? In nearly every post, you call nearly every poster a Party bigot or slave, and you actually think that this is some kind of logical corner?

    Wow. You really don't see it, do you?

    There are no logical corners in posting circular arguments over and over ad nauseam that do nothing more than refer to people as Party bigots and ideological slaves.

    Think about that, please. :)

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    There are no logical corners in posting circular arguments over and over ad nauseam that do nothing more than refer to people as Party bigots and ideological slaves.

    I only do that after the facts are clear..

    If ya'all wouldn't prove it, I would have no argument..

Comments for this article are closed.