Gallup Poll ~ Most Admired Man

Gallup Poll ~ Most Admired Man of the Year??????????

When a life-long con man and cult personality wins the
majority of votes, you know the American Empire is in
the the deep blue sea right next to the Titanic.

Many Americans certainly want to see the United States as an empire but it's not a good thing. Every time we choose to interfere in the internal affairs or send troops overseas to staff bases or fight wars it comes at a cost to the population at large. If you're wondering why other countries have health care for all their citizens and we don't or why our infrastructure is falling down all over or why other countries can support their citizens all the way through college---well one reason is they're not invested into being the world's greatest war machine or world's policeman. As much as we need to defund the police we really need to defund the military/industrial complex even more.

Well, he got his "Nobel" now didn't he.

It all comes down to white nationalism and the brown demographic wave.

I am confused. Whom are we talking about?

>5 guido47: The Gallop Poll named Trump the most admired man of the year (makes my gorge rise to type that) and Kamala Harris the most admired woman.

Michelle Obama was #1
Kamala was second

Really I can't say I admire any of them. What I hope for is they do a good job and I'm a little leery on that though the Trump administration has set the bar below ground level so that Biden and Harris can't help but be better.

Thanks >#6 May I vomit in unison with you. Orange vomit of course.

Guido.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/huh-trump-claims-his-recent-most-admired-man-hono...
Huh? Trump Cites Recent ‘Most Admired Man’ Honor as Evidence of a ‘RIGGED’ Election

In my lifetime, we have moved from the 'greatest
generation' era down to this Trump era.

#10--well he would do that. It's just more stupid from him. To me the news today AFAIC he's at least somewhat responsible for the death of incoming republican congress-elect Luke Letlow's death from Covid. However you want to look at it it's a tragedy that certainly didn't need to happen. A 41 year old leaves a widow, a 3 year old son and a 11 month old daughter all because of all the denial and stupid mixed messaging that has come out of the White House since the pandemic began. I mean really it's asshole shit if you haven't figured it out by now. Over 330,000 dead and still arguing over whether it's fucking real or whether to take precautions at all. To continue down the same pathological road after all this time and all this staggering tragedy is to give new definition to the terms idiocy and depravity.You're simply completely and totally fucked up if you haven't figured out that this is super dangerous by now. There is literally no fucking hope for you.

Mass-Media-mediated junk.

Means nothing, either positively or negatively.

#13--pretty much. People should be more leery than they are of prize winners and front covers of popular magazines.

Right >13 lriley:,

Before my time. I believe TIME MAGAZINE mentioned an Adolf Hitler on their cover as ...

Guido.

>15 Earthling1: That's why he won in a landslide

He won in a "landslide" in 2016 with 306 electoral college votes but with 3 million less popular votes than his opponent, so it's debatable whether "most people admire him" - if they did, he would likely have got more popular votes than his opponent. Biden won in a "landslide" in 2020 with the same 306 electoral votes and with 8 million more popular votes than Trump, so it seems "most people admire" Biden more than they do Trump. Times change.

Spreading lies might come with a price tag:

https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/donald-trumps-lawyer-sued-for-...

>17 Earthling1:

+100


The revenge-maddened Democrats seek to cast aside still more hard-won standards of justice and civil liberties.

(from The Hill, Washington, D.C.) Swift new impeachment would damage the Constitution | By Jonathan Turley | opinion contributor — 01/09/21 10:00 AM EST |

"The author Franz Kafka once wrote, 'My guiding principle is this. Guilt is never to be doubted.'

"Democrats suddenly appear close to adopting that standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends.

"Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his remarks to supporters before the rioting at the Capitol. Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. But his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court.

"When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd 'to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.' ...
_____________________
(The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill)

________________________________

for further reading, Book review

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314488821

Shakespeare in Hate: Emotions, Passions, Self-hood .
Author: Peter Kishore Saval.

Series: Routledge Studies in Shakespeare No. 15.
London: Routledge, 2016. 170 pp. Price: Not cheap at nearly $1/page.
$145.

Review Article in Renaissance Quarterly · March 2017
3 pp. DOI: 10.1086/6919

Article's download link

From the online journal, Spiked | The woke purge | Twitter’s suspension of Donald Trump is a chilling sign of tyranny to come. | by Brendan O'Neill | 09 January 2021
(Commentary)

… “Twitter’s ban on Trump is extraordinary for many reasons. First, there’s the arrogance of it. Make no mistake: this is the bosses vs democracy; corporates vs the people; exceptionally wealthy and aloof elites determining which elected politicians may engage in online discussion, which is where most political and public debate takes place in the 21st century. Those who cannot see how concerning and sinister it is that a handful of Big Tech companies have secured a virtual monopoly over the social side of the internet, and are now exploiting their monopolistic power to dictate what political opinions it is acceptable to hold and express in these forums, urgently need a wake-up call.

“Secondly, there is Twitter’s deeply disturbing justification for why it suspended Trump. It says Trump’s account ran the ‘risk’ of ‘inciting violence.’ And yet the two tweets of his that it cites do nothing of the sort. In one, Trump describes his voters as ‘great American patriots’ and insists they will have a ‘GIANT VOICE’ in the future. In the other he confirms that he will not be attending the inauguration of Joe Biden. That’s it. In what warped moral universe can such standard, boastful Trump-made statements be interpreted as calls for violence?

“In the warped moral universe of pre-emptive, precautionary censorship being built by our tech overlords, that’s where. Strikingly, Twitter says its censorship of the president is based on how other people might read and interpret his words. It says its censorious motivation is ‘specifically’ the question of ‘how (Trump’s tweets) are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter’. Trump’s comments ‘must be read’ in the broader context of how certain statements ‘can be mobilised by different audiences’, Twitter decrees. So Trump’s words, strictly speaking, are not the problem; it’s the possibility, the risk, that someone, somewhere might interpret them in a particular way.

“This sets a terrifying precedent for the internet age. It legitimises a new regime of online censorship which doesn’t only punish inflammatory speech—which would be bad enough—but which punishes normal, legitimate political speech on the grounds of how other, unnamed people or groups might respond to it.

“There would be no end to what could be censored. …

(all emphasis as in the original copy)
_________________________

Brendan O'Neill is editor of Spiked.

>17 Earthling1:

Earthling old mate, haven't seen you posting for a few days. I hope you're well, and that you haven't succumbed to COVID-19 or anything.

You have your facts wrong. Trump won in a landslide in 2020

I'll ask once more (not really expecting a sensible answer) how you are so sure of this. You say I'm just parrotting what I read in the Guardian, but would I be wrong in saying that the Trump camp has pursued all available legal and constitutional options to challenge the election result? And that recounts, audits, verification procedures and court cases (right up to the Supreme Court) have not resulted in any change to the original result? And that the manufacturers of voting machines are now suing the Trump supporters who have been badmouthing them, because there is no evidence of any failures? And that the Electoral College votes were certified by the states as 232 votes for Trump and 306 for Biden? And that on 6th January Congress met to certify those results, and that after some objections were heard and debated, the results were certified by large majorities in both houses (despite the disruption caused by domestic terrorists attacking Congress to try to subvert democracy)? And that in all these parts of the electoral process, both Democrats and Republicans were involved in decision-making, and indeed some of the latter were Trump appointees?

Is all of the above fake news, or is it a fairly accurate summary of what has happened? If the latter, do you still maintain that Trump won (let alone by a landslide)? And if you do still so maintain, what sources do you have which are more accurate than all of the ones I have mentioned above? Note that I have not relied solely on news media - all of the above are official processes, the records of which are in the public domain. On what sources are you relying?

Edited to fix typo. Thanks, mamzel!

>1 Molly3028: When Donald Trump was a Democrat, he walked on water and kicked up dirt, (according to polls). Donald Trump dated a woman of color, posed for pictures and was given awards by people of color. Hillary had a lawyer/boss who went on national media in the Nixon administration to call her a liar, and mentioned her unethical behavior. She laughed about freeing an old man that drove a young girl into the woods and raped her. She laughed at the Benghazi investigation, on the heels of gruesome attacks and undeclared acts of war during her watch. Apples and apples, oranges and oranges. Polls have lied since the dawn of time, and media sources only seem to be getting worse. Websites of discussion are only making chicken salad out of the original chicken poop.

#22–I’m not a fan of the Clinton’s at all but where are they now?—what real power do they have? They are has beens as far as I’m concerned and their input into the 2020 election negligible at best.

>22 smirks4u: Polls have lied

Interesting phrasing. Do you mean polls have sometimes been in error, or do you mean that polls set out to deliberately present false results? Actually a lot of polls have been pretty accurate.

>24 John5918: Before Donald Trump was nominated and elected; dozens of polls were trumpeted and re-posted ad nauseum. National Public Radio, a tax-paid forum, held speak easy's against all things Trump. The polls presented in Newsweek, CNN, Vox, were strictly sock puppets for Liberal strategists. Comedians and entertainment sources used those numbers as a diving board to go into the deeper end of the crazy pool No true, equitable polling occurred, judging from the facts. Otherwise, the number and severity of errors in their polls would have been minimized. When one says there is little more than one chance in one hundred of an event that later became fact; that is a scientific margin of error approaching fifty percent. Los Angeles psychics hot lines could have done much better.

#25–no real evidence to any of the Donald’s assertions that the election was stolen. He and his lawyers lost court case after court case. Many of the justices in these cases were his own appointees. The Supreme Court did not want to touch it. Basically his entire shtick was meritless. Still he persisted up and until the Capitol Riot debacle which left several people dead—more than less victims of his personal aggrievement, entitlement and narcissism. Have to say other people’s dead bodies don’t seem to bother him very much.

Losing by 7 million votes—that’s a pretty substantial number. He didn’t get a plurality of the votes in 2016 either. I don’t know what some people want. All he has to do is say something and ‘you’ people believe him and evidence is not necessary. He’s done IMO—as done as the Clinton’s and good riddance to all of them.

>25 smirks4u:

You're all very focused on the single case of Trump. As far as I can recall, most opinion polls predicted that he would lose in 2020 and he did. In 2016 they might have been less accurate - I can't recall whether they predicted a Turmp or Clinton win. I do recall reading that opinion polls on US presidential elections have generally been correct since the 1940s, with only one or two major aberrations.