4) What this means is that they "primed" the respondent by offering up a bunch of heavily biased questions that implied criminal wrongdoing by the President. Things like:
"Are you aware that President Trump asked a foreign country for damaging dirt on his political opponents?"
But they aren't going to show you those questions.
1) Easy way to tell when a poll is a fake push poll.
Go to the PEW website and find the article.
10) Addendum: I had forgotten that I had learned about Tit For Tat from the late, great Steven Den Beste. Here he applies the lesson brilliantly to the topic of war and deterrence:
9) Once the rest of the world comes to actually believe that Donald Trump is a straight shooter, and that you don't have to fear being stabbed in the back by him, or becoming a victim of some sort of hidden agenda of his, the rest of the world will feel that they can now trust the American president, and that will be the foundation of trust that will allow President Trump to make breathtaking strides in world politics in his second term.
7) Barack Obama would have probably ignored the provocation. He wouldn't have wanted to lose the chance for a summit. And then he would have made more concessions at the summit. Just like with Iran. Donald Trump cancelled the summit, which was completely consistant with how he plays the game, and he *proved* to the Taliban that he does not play by Obama's rules. If the Taliban wants to benefit from Donald Trump, they have to cooperate with him, not stab him in the back.
4) If you are important enough to be a player in the political game --
If you publicly complement Donald Trump, he will publicly complement you back.
If you publicly insult him, he will publicly insult you back. You might even get a nickname.
If you make a peace offering to him, he will return the gesture. As if you were friends all along.
And last but not least, if you launch a scorched-earth campaign of personal destruction against him or threaten his family, he will ruin your life.
1) Donald Trump knows his game theory. His algorithm of choice is called Tit For Tat.
Tit For Tat is an algorithm for playing iterative Prisoner's Dilemma type games. In such games, in each "move" each player must decide whether to cooperate or defect. If both players cooperate, they both gain. If both players defect, neither gains. But if one player cooperates and the other defects, the one who defects picks up points over the one who cooperates.
2) I'll take this as a sign that RGB really is on her way out this time -- The pro-choice people are scrambling for a new theory of Constitutional protection for abortion and here's what they have come up with.
I'm sure they have no idea how offensive this is and I suspect that they will figure it out and scotch this, but I would pay money to watch a string of Democratic Senators grill Amy Barrett on whether she supports the religious right to have an abortion.
1) An ultra-liberal facebook friend just linked to this in dead seriousness:
It's a sequence of actors looking into the camera and declaring, "Reproductive freedom is religious freedom." It used to be considered black humor to say that the only sacrament of the left was abortion, but my gosh, here it is. Right out in the open. They're saying it now. Or at least they are market-testing the idea.
This gerrymandering crap that the Democrats have pulled over the years, the more I reflect on it, the more it is biting them on their asses.
By doing what they did, they have provided a "shortcut" to people who are fringey leftist access to state government and federal government seats. Without the gerrymandering these people would have at best be elevated to town alderman or city council.
Now the Democrats have a headache with districts that are deep blue going further left.
Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.