Poll: Do You Approve of Trump?

[IMPress Polly]

So I thought I'd test and see just how far afield from actual public opinion the overall view from PF is on this subject. As of this date (May 17th), the most recent three major polls (all the ones conducted on the subject this month to date) show the president's job approval rating in the upper 30s and disapproval in the mid-to-upper 50s (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job.htm) and likewise the Gallup daily tracking poll shows the same trend (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job1.htm). Let's see just how far away from that the general opinion is on this message board: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing as president?

[Crepitus]

The man is an incompetent bundler at best, or a treasonous puppet of a foreign power at worst.

[Common]

Trump was not the best person to be president but hes better than Hillary and Obama

[texan]

I do not approve of the way he is conducting himself. I do not have a problem with what counts which is policy and plan.

[midcan5]

Trump gave simple repetitive speeches that named all the icons conservatives have been taught to hate. Media, elites, government, certain minorities, diversity, liberals, welfare recipients, Hillary, etc etc. Some are simply symbols. The group that believed these harangues is still with him, they will always be there as the enemy of my enemy is my friend even when the act is a charade as it was with Trump. So long as the economy is stable the poorly written play will continue....

"This ‘illusion of confidence’ extends beyond the classroom and permeates everyday life. In a follow-up study, Dunning and Kruger left the lab and went to a gun range, where they quizzed gun hobbyists about gun safety." Kate Fehlhaber https://aeon.co/ideas/what-know-it-alls-dont-know-or-the-illusion-of-competence

Edit: HRC hatred is a fascinating phenom. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34804468-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton

'This is what happens when the world is led by a child' http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article150746382.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article150746382.html#fmp%23nyt)

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise." Joseph Goebbels

[Common]

I do not approve of the way he is conducting himself. I do not have a problem with what counts which is policy and plan.

I agree with that he needs to change his demeanor. Liberals are so busy denigrating him they dont see how hes been kicking their ass behind the scenes. He has been more than successful with illegal immigration, hes appointing judges, dismantling obamas regulatory exec orders in record speed along with other of obamas bs.

Just dont stop raging and flaming

[Green Arrow]

Disapprove.

[Docthehun]

He didn't want the job in the first place and if he could exit as a "hero" today, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He hates his job because he can't run the country like Putin rules Russia. Republican Congress can't find their way to get behind him. They spent the last eight years railing on Obama and Hillary. Job well done. So here's the keys to the whole shebang.

Progress update: Stuck in the station.................

[Ravens Fan]

So far, I approve. The guy has been giving an honest effort to address every promise he made on the campaign trail, he got a great judge confirmed for SCOTUS and he constantly gives the establishment the middle finger. Plus, because of him, Hillary is on the outside trying desperately to get back in.

Has he made missteps? Yes. Has he had some growing pains? Yes. But that was to be expected from someone who has no experience in government.

I think that if the MSM would start doing their jobs instead of spreading each others' fake and/or misrepresentative news, Trumps national polling would come up. But, that doesn't help the Dems in 2018, so why would the MSM do that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Safety]

Trump was not the best person to be president but hes better than Hillary and Obama

According to your opinion. Others may say he's worse than anything Hillary could have done and Obama has done. You could have elected Cruz, Rubio, Paul, et.al. and still have Gorsuch confirmed, the chance to repeal ACA, and a host of other things done without the distractions of a manchild throwing tantrums and tweeting sober at 3am.

[Common Sense]

This whole thing is such a joke. It's too bad it's not funny.

America will probably look back at this presidency as a national embarrassment.

[Safety]

This whole thing is such a joke. It's too bad it's not funny.

America will probably look back at this presidency as a national embarrassment.

You mistakenly added a word. I fixed it for you.

[FindersKeepers]

Some of his ideas are not bad, but he has a problem conducting himself in a manner suitable to the presidency.

I approve of some of the things he does and I disapprove of others.

[NapRover]

I approve. He's trying to do what he promised he'd do. Still not much progress, but in the right direction I think.

[Safety]

Some of his ideas are not bad, but he has a problem conducting himself in a manner suitable to the presidency.

I approve of some of the things he does and I disapprove of others.

Vote.

[Crepitus]

Funny hoe like 5 folks have jumped in to defend him but only 2 have committed to approving.

[FindersKeepers]

Vote.

There is no appropriate poll selection for my point of view or I would

[Safety]

There is no appropriate poll selection for my point of view or I would

Choose the lessor of the evils. :grin:

[FindersKeepers]

Choose the lessor of the evils. :grin:

I did that back in November.

[Safety]

I did that back in November.

Exactly, you don't want to give the same consideration to this poll?

[FindersKeepers]

Exactly, you don't want to give the same consideration to this poll?

The poll selections do not allow for that.

It's an all-or-nothing choice.

Sorry, bad poll selections.

[Safety]

The poll selections do not allow for that.

It's an all-or-nothing choice.

Sorry, bad poll selections.

So was November, but you held your nose and voted anyway. At least this poll doesn't have the dire circumstances that the result from the one in November had today.

[FindersKeepers]

So was November, but you held your nose and voted anyway. At least this poll doesn't have the dire circumstances that the result from the one in November had today.

There is still no way to truthfully answer it.

Sorry.

[Chris]

I like that he's shaking everything up but little else. Too liberal, but then he always has been.

[Chris]

There is still no way to truthfully answer it.

Sorry.


The nation on the whole, the aggregate, couldn't answer since a % approve and a % disappove. Not everything is black and white.

[decedent]

Trump was not the best person to be president but hes better than Hillary and Obama


I do not approve of the way he is conducting himself. I do not have a problem with what counts which is policy and plan.

Then why not allow Pence a chance? He's sane and he's not orange.

[The Xl]

He's not qualified to do anything in the political realm in an ideal world, but in this far from ideal world full of sociopathic empty suit politicians, I'd gladly roll the dice with him again. At worst, he'll continue to cause mayhem within the system and bleed out every last ounce of credibility and perceived morality the political class and media has.

[The Xl]

I like that he's shaking everything up but little else. Too liberal, but then he always has been.

This, but in a world where it's between Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, etc, and where they continue the same status quo, he's the best option. Dudes an egomaniacal asshole, and still the best President we've had since Kennedy. That's not saying much, but the bar for that is so low that shaking an evil institution to it's core, whether it's because of benevolent or selfish reasons, wins you that race.

[Safety]

This, but in a world where it's between Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, etc, and where they continue the same status quo, he's the best option. Dudes an egomaniacal asshole, and still the best President we've had since Kennedy. That's not saying much, but the bar for that is so low that shaking an evil institution to it's core, whether it's because of benevolent or selfish reasons, wins you that race.

"...the best president we've had since Kennedy..." Um...that's on the same level as saying Tim Tebow is the best football player since Joe Montana.

wow.

[Chris]

This, but in a world where it's between Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, etc, and where they continue the same status quo, he's the best option. Dudes an egomaniacal asshole, and still the best President we've had since Kennedy. That's not saying much, but the bar for that is so low that shaking an evil institution to it's core, whether it's because of benevolent or selfish reasons, wins you that race.

Hmmm, not sure about that. But then my favorite President was Goldwater.

[IMPress Polly]

I have to admit being surprised by a couple of the 'disapprove' votes so far. I didn't see 'disapprove' votes from Doublejack or Private Pickle coming. I'd like to get their perspective if I can.

And FindersKeepers, what is your position if it's one that's not in the poll?

[Kalkin]

What's not to like? He's rolling back EOs and regulations, chipping away at obamacare, and exposing the left as the hyperventilating emotional dingbats that they've always been.

[Mechanic]

So I thought I'd test and see just how far afield from actual public opinion the overall view from PF is on this subject. As of this date (May 17th), the most recent three major polls (all the ones conducted on the subject this month to date) show the president's job approval rating in the upper 30s and disapproval in the mid-to-upper 50s (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job.htm) and likewise the Gallup daily tracking poll shows the same trend (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job1.htm). Let's see just how far away from that the general opinion is on this message board: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing as president?Trumputin is in no way a leader. He is a con artist and crook. He needs to be removed from office along with his gang of crooked republican nimbys.

[Kalkin]

He needs to be removed from office along with his gang of crooked republican nimbys.
You'll have that chance in 2020. Until then, get thee to the back of the bus.

[Doublejack]

I have to admit being surprised by a couple of the 'disapprove' votes so far. I didn't see 'disapprove' votes from @Doublejack (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1736) or @Private Pickle (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=615) coming. I'd like to get their perspective if I can.

And @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881), what is your position if it's one that's not in the poll?


Eh, you must have me confused with someone else.

The only reason someone would support Trump and this obvious debacle of a presidency would be to be so full of hate as to ignore reality and replace it with spite of their perceived enemy.

[The Xl]

"...the best president we've had since Kennedy..." Um...that's on the same level as saying Tim Tebow is the best football player since Joe Montana.

wow.

If everyone playing football since Montana would have been Ryan Leaf, then Tebow would have been the best player since Montana.

[Private Pickle]

I have to admit being surprised by a couple of the 'disapprove' votes so far. I didn't see 'disapprove' votes from @Doublejack (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1736) or @Private Pickle (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=615) coming. I'd like to get their perspective if I can.

And @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881), what is your position if it's one that's not in the poll?
My perspective? He shouldn't have been elected in the first place. He doesn't know how Washington works. He is turning the POTUS position into a reality TV character. He is unable to get anything done that matters. He isn't the master negotiator he claimed to be... He openly spews verbal diarrhea with absolutely no reasoning behind it. He instills confusion and uncertainty daily.

I could go on.

[Cletus]

Eh, you must have me confused with someone else.

The only reason someone would support Trump and this obvious debacle of a presidency would be to be so full of hate as to ignore reality and replace it with spite of their perceived enemy.

Nonsense.

What specific policies of Trump's do you find objectionable?

[Cletus]

My perspective? He shouldn't have been elected in the first place. He doesn't know how Washington works. He is turning the POTUS position into a reality TV character. He is unable to get anything done that matters. He isn't the master negotiator he claimed to be... He openly spews verbal diarrhea with absolutely no reasoning behind it. He instills confusion and uncertainty daily.

I could go on.

Since you are not making any sense, please don't.

[Kalkin]

Every lefty post I read reaffirms my belief that Trump is doing just fine.

[Common Sense]

Every lefty post I read reaffirms my belief that Trump is doing just fine.

What a great metric...

[Cletus]

Every lefty post I read reaffirms my belief that Trump is doing just fine.

There is a lot of truth on that.

If Trump does something that make the Left go into spasms, it is probably something good for the country.

[Chris]

What a great metric...

Did you just prove it with that pudding post?

[birddog]

Trump is too mouthy for his own good at times, but he has already accomplished more positive things for our country than The Kenyan did in eight years!

[Kalkin]

There is a lot of truth on that.

If Trump does something that make the Left go into spasms, it is probably something good for the country.

Trump could do absolutely nothing and have the same reaction. The left is in the first stage of a 4-8 year menstrual cramp.

[Common Sense]

Did you just prove it with that pudding post?

So you think the negative comments are a good way to judge Trump's performance?

Perhaps another pudding and a nap would serve you well...

[Chloe]

Trump is showing himself to be an extremely incompetent executive in my opinion. Running a real estate business and opening golf courses does not translate to running the executive office.

[Kalkin]

So you think the negative comments are a good way to judge Trump's performance?

Perhaps another pudding and a nap would serve you well...

When our enemy is unhinged over the actions of our president, it's a sign that he's doing the right thing.

[Private Pickle]

Since you are not making any sense, please don't.
Derp.

[Safety]

Trump is showing himself to be an extremely incompetent executive in my opinion. Running a real estate business and opening golf courses does not translate to running the executive office.

I don't need to say how many knew that little nugget of truth before others who elected him found out.

[Chris]

Trump is showing himself to be an extremely incompetent executive in my opinion. Running a real estate business and opening golf courses does not translate to running the executive office.

Besides, running a business is different than running a government. A business has to provide what customers want, a government has a captive audience.

[Adelaide]

I disapprove.

[Chris]

So you think the negative comments are a good way to judge Trump's performance?

Perhaps another pudding and a nap would serve you well...


I think so. Those negatives with any substance probably are negative from Trump supporters. Those negatives without substance simply indicate how much Trump is shaking things up.

Chocolate pudding?

[Kalkin]

The truth is, Trump is not perfect. However, since our POTUS would be either him or hillary, we obviously made the right choice.

[Common Sense]

When our enemy is unhinged over the actions of our president, it's a sign that he's doing the right thing.

So all the bile spewed by the right about Obama indicated he was doing a good job?

I don't think that's a very good way to measure success.

[Kalkin]

So all the bile spewed by the right about Obama indicated he was doing a good job?
Nope. Different situation.

I don't think that's a very good way to measure success.
It works for me.

[Chris]

So all the bile spewed by the right about Obama indicated he was doing a good job?

I don't think that's a very good way to measure success.


To liberals, sure--and it sure seemed like it at the time, when criticism wasn't deflected as "racist."

Pudding?

[suds00]

According to your opinion. Others may say he's worse than anything Hillary could have done and Obama has done. You could have elected Cruz, Rubio, Paul, et.al. and still have Gorsuch confirmed, the chance to repeal ACA, and a host of other things done without the distractions of a manchild throwing tantrums and tweeting sober at 3am.i agree.and his unpredictability is dangerous.

[Common Sense]

To liberals, sure--and it sure seemed like it at the time, when criticism wasn't deflected as "racist."

Pudding?
Some on the left may have seen that as an accurate way to measure success, but I contend it's inaccurate and foolish.

When the right were calling Obama a communist or a Muslim, I certainly don't think that was an indication of his success, but rather an indication of idiocy.

Nah, that pudding is yours.

[Common Sense]

Nope. Different situation.

It works for me.


The situation is different how exactly?

How does it work for you? When the left criticize Trump for childish tweets or his proven hypocrisy, that indicates success?

[Kalkin]

The situation is different how exactly?
Different time, different president, different agenda.


How does it work for you?
Spectacularly.

When the left criticize Trump for childish tweets or his proven hypocrisy, that indicates success?
Yep. Trump has been playing the press like this since he announced his candidacy. It got him elected and it continues to befuddle the leftist press. Meanwhile, he continues to unravel obama's legacy daily.

[Cletus]

The situation is different how exactly?

It is really pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand it.

The Left hates this country. For years, they have been trying to undermine the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built. If they are applauding something, the odds are quite high that it is something that is bad for the US. If they are throwing fits and wailing, it means something good for the US is happening, has happened or is about to happen.

[Kalkin]

It is really pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand it.

The Left hates this country. For years, they have been trying to undermine the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built. If they are applauding something, the odds are quite high that it is something that is bad for the US. If they are throwing fits and wailing, it means something good for the US is happening, has happened or is about to happen.

Exactly.

[Tahuyaman]

The man is an incompetent bundler at best, or a treasonous puppet of a foreign power at worst.

He has mishandled the style of being the POTUS, but he is pushing the agenda he was elected to push. I don't like his style, but I do support the substance of his policy ideas.


So far his only policy misstep was the attack on Syria. The health care debacle is mostly on the cowards in the Congress.


He miscalculated just how much the ruling class elites would resist an outsider taking over. He should have seen this coming.


This puppet of a foreign government garbage is fodder for conspriacy theorist imbeciles.

[William]

It is really pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand it.

The Left hates this country. For years, they have been trying to undermine the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built. If they are applauding something, the odds are quite high that it is something that is bad for the US. If they are throwing fits and wailing, it means something good for the US is happening, has happened or is about to happen.

I find your statement a little confusing. Who exactly are 'the Left'? And if they are Americans, why would they hate their own country, and the ideals upon which it was built? This mass of people you call 'the Left' live in the USA - why would they applaud something which is obviously bad for where they live? It simply makes as much sense as saying your last President hated the USA - none at all.

Everyone has his own value systems, and his own ideas about how the society they live in should operate for the benefit of the maximum people - someone whose opinion is different from yours or mine, does not logically translate into that person being evil or hating the millions of people in our countries.

[Ethereal]

This whole thing is such a joke. It's too bad it's not funny.

America will probably look back at this presidency as a national embarrassment.

The US government has been a national embarrassment for at least a century. Their crimes are simply too numerous to list.

[Common Sense]

Different time, different president, different agenda.

Spectacularly.

Yep. Trump has been playing the press like this since he announced his candidacy. It got him elected and it continues to befuddle the leftist press. Meanwhile, he continues to unravel obama's legacy daily.
Oh, so it's the same thing but from a different partisan perspective. Cool beans.

[Common Sense]

It is really pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand it.

The Left hates this country. For years, they have been trying to undermine the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built. If they are applauding something, the odds are quite high that it is something that is bad for the US. If they are throwing fits and wailing, it means something good for the US is happening, has happened or is about to happen.

That's ridiculous. The left could say the same thing about the right and it would also be incorrect. Both the left and the right love their country. People who claim otherwise typically don't mean country, but their version of it or their ideals. Fortunately you don't get to define America or decide who loves it or hates it.

[Common Sense]

The US government has been a national embarrassment for at least a century. Their crimes are simply too numerous to list.
There could be an argument for that, but I'd argue that Trump has made America look foolish and amateur. He only helps reenforce negative stereotypes like the strong but dull American.

[Ethereal]

I've said before that Trump is a dilettante, an egomaniac, and a natural authoritarian. I just do not believe he's an aberration in this regard. The biggest difference between Trump and his predecessors is that Trump is generally unable or unwilling to sugar coat his illiberal mindset with saccharine rhetoric and flowery sentiment. He is the naked embodiment of the US's longstanding love affair with authority and violence. Those who revere and respect the US government find this upsetting and disturbing because it strips away the mythology at the heart of US nobility and virtuousness.

[Ethereal]

There could be an argument for that, but I'd argue that Trump has made America look foolish and amateur. He only helps reenforce negative stereotypes like the strong but dull American.
How many governments has the US overthrown? How many thugs and dictators has it propped up? How many death squads has it stood up? How many innocent people have they killed in wars of aggression? How many nonviolent drug offenders have they thrown into prison? If that isn't enough to shame Americans, then nothing is.

[Casper]

The man is an incompetent bundler at best, or a treasonous puppet of a foreign power at worst.
Awwww, come on now, he can be both a bundler and a puppet, don't sell him short.

[Common Sense]

How many governments has the US overthrown? How many thugs and dictators has it propped up? How many death squads has it stood up? How many innocent people have they killed in wars of aggression? How many nonviolent drug offenders have they thrown into prison? If that isn't enough to shame Americans, then nothing is.

Oh, I agree, but I'm speaking specifically of Trump's incompetence and not the foreign policy of the US or its war on drugs and criminal justice system.

While I do acknowledge the faults of Democrats, there is a stark difference to the approach by Democrats vs Republicans with regards to the war on drugs, the criminal justice system and foreign policy. The differences between Bush and Obama were stark. While the Dems are far far from perfect, they are better in that regard. From criminal justice reforms, ending torture, withdrawing from Iraq or a less aggressive war on pot, the Dems are different.

But when it comes to Trump, my criticism is based on his hypocrisy and incompetence.

[FindersKeepers]

I have to admit being surprised by a couple of the 'disapprove' votes so far. I didn't see 'disapprove' votes from @Doublejack (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1736) or @Private Pickle (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=615) coming. I'd like to get their perspective if I can.

And @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881), what is your position if it's one that's not in the poll?

As I posted earlier, there are some things Trump has done of which I approve, but there are also things he's done that I do not approve of. So, I'm in the middle. Not 100% on either side.

[Tahuyaman]

There are some who will disapprove of any president simply because he's the POTUS. No other reason is needed.

There are others who will see no wrong or right with any president based solely on partisanship. That could be a slim majority.

[Ethereal]

Oh, I agree, but I'm speaking specifically of Trump's incompetence and not the foreign policy of the US or its war on drugs and criminal justice system.

While I do acknowledge the faults of Democrats, there is a stark difference to the approach by Democrats vs Republicans with regards to the war on drugs, the criminal justice system and foreign policy. The differences between Bush and Obama were stark. While the Dems are far far from perfect, they are better in that regard. From criminal justice reforms, ending torture, withdrawing from Iraq or a less aggressive war on pot, the Dems are different.

But when it comes to Trump, my criticism is based on his hypocrisy and incompetence.
Incompetence with regards to what, though? Killing people? Destroying countries? Imprisoning people? Do I want the local mafia boss to be competent at his work, too?

[Green Arrow]

It is really pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand it.

The Left hates this country. For years, they have been trying to undermine the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built. If they are applauding something, the odds are quite high that it is something that is bad for the US. If they are throwing fits and wailing, it means something good for the US is happening, has happened or is about to happen.

Complete, irrational absurdity.

[Tahuyaman]

Complete, irrational absurdity.


How so?

[del]

This whole thing is such a joke. It's too bad it's not funny.

America will probably look back at this presidency as a national embarrassment.

it's an embarrassment in real time- no need to look back

[del]

Choose the lessor of the evils. :grin:
by 2020, trump will have won the presidency with 0% of the popular vote.

[Safety]

by 2020, trump will have won the presidency with 0% of the popular vote.

Amazing, isn't it. People are able to hold their nose and vote for someone to run the country that is proven to be a disaster, but refuse to vote in a harmless online poll...

[Dr. Who]

I did that back in November.

The problem with choosing the lesser of evils is that you still end up with evil. People should have voted third party, spoiled their ballots or stayed home. Imagine if the entire country essentially said, you've got to be kidding - find me a candidate worthy of voting for or don't waste my time or insult my intelligence with a charade. The DNC and RNC have gone so far down the road of caring more about being in power for its own sake than caring about representing the people with a credible leader that both parties should be dissolved for cause.

[Crepitus]

I find your statement a little confusing. Who exactly are 'the Left'? And if they are Americans, why would they hate their own country, and the ideals upon which it was built? This mass of people you call 'the Left' live in the USA - why would they applaud something which is obviously bad for where they live? It simply makes as much sense as saying your last President hated the USA - none at all.

Everyone has his own value systems, and his own ideas about how the society they live in should operate for the benefit of the maximum people - someone whose opinion is different from yours or mine, does not logically translate into that person being evil or hating the millions of people in our countries.

Far right propaganda that has been forced fed to the conservative base has warped their thinking.

[Safety]

The problem with choosing the lesser of evils is that you still end up with evil. People should have voted third party, spoiled their ballots or stayed home. Imagine if the entire country essentially said, you've got to be kidding - find me a candidate worthy of voting for or don't waste my time or insult my intelligence with a charade. The DNC and RNC have gone so far down the road of caring more about being in power for its own sake than caring about representing the people with a credible leader that both parties should be dissolved for cause.

Basically, they should have done what they did in this thread.

[IMPress Polly]

Chloe wrote:
Trump is showing himself to be an extremely incompetent executive in my opinion. Running a real estate business and opening golf courses does not translate to running the executive office.


Safety wrote:
I don't need to say how many knew that little nugget of truth before others who elected him found out.

Personally, this is kind of how I had predicted that the first 100 days of Trump would work out:

18142

The sad thing is that it's turned out to not really be all that far from the truth.

I'll try and respond to some other people tomorrow morning. If I feel like it.

[Cletus]

Personally, this is kind of how I had predicted that the first 100 days of Trump would work out:

18142

The sad thing is that it's turned out to not really be that far from the truth.

I'll try and respond to some other people tomorrow morning. If I feel like it.

Let's hope you don't.

[Kalkin]

I find your statement a little confusing. Who exactly are 'the Left'? And if they are Americans, why would they hate their own country,
Because, in many ways the United States is a meritocracy. If you want to get ahead, you have to have brains, balls, and ambition. The left is severely lacking in all three categories, so they champion wealth redistribution and class envy.

[Kalkin]

Oh, so it's the same thing but from a different partisan perspective. Cool beans.
One side being right, the other being wrong/left.

[Mister D]

How many governments has the US overthrown? How many thugs and dictators has it propped up? How many death squads has it stood up? How many innocent people have they killed in wars of aggression? How many nonviolent drug offenders have they thrown into prison? If that isn't enough to shame Americans, then nothing is.

I mean that's bad stuff but...Trump. lol

[Dr. Who]

I've said before that Trump is a dilettante, an egomaniac, and a natural authoritarian. I just do not believe he's an aberration in this regard. The biggest difference between Trump and his predecessors is that Trump is generally unable or unwilling to sugar coat his illiberal mindset with saccharine rhetoric and flowery sentiment. He is the naked embodiment of the US's longstanding love affair with authority and violence. Those who revere and respect the US government find this upsetting and disturbing because it strips away the mythology at the heart of US nobility and virtuousness.
If I thought that was his only problem, I'd probably still dislike him, but I wouldn't feel compelled to comment except in general since I really have issues with those very things. I'm more concerned with the fact that he is totally out of his depth and he's not interested in learning. His inner cabinet points to that. If you need to navigate a minefield, you don't pick guides who are unfamiliar with the territory, nor do you limit your intelligence reports to a "Cliffs Notes" summary. A President who has no political background should be surrounding himself with people who have the depth of knowledge that he lacks and should be reading those intelligence reports in detail and asking questions. He should be spending his spare time getting up to speed, not running out of the Whitehouse at the stroke of 5 on Friday afternoons to fly off to his private resort. A President with no political background should be listening most of the time and speaking only when he's sure that he knows what he's talking about and he certainly shouldn't be throwing his spokespersons under the bus every other day. If there is a job where you don't want a loose cannon, it's POTUS.

[Casper]

There are some who will disapprove of any president simply because he's the POTUS. No other reason is needed.

There are others who will see no wrong or right with any president based solely on partisanship. That could be a slim majority.
Well then, I do not disagree or want to take issue with a President just because. I was against Trump becoming President, as I was against Hillary becoming President, for different reasons, but I opposed both. I suggested at the time that we should have a None of the Above choice and if more than 50% had voted so they would need to replace the candidates, neither was fit IMO. That said, while against Trump for my issues with his ideas, I was hoping that he would get enough right and prove me wrong in my opposition to him. Not only did he not meet that low bar, he has managed to actually make me think less of him. I may lean off center Liberal, I still believe that this Nation can be better than we were, and it would not take much to be better than we are now. Trump has show he is ignorant of how the government works, he cannot be trusted with classified intel, he got real close to obstruction of justice charges (attempted is another story), he has hired controversial people to his cabinet, attacked the press (some warranted), and he is best friends forever with Putin and shown admiration for many of the other despots around globe, and on and on, and it has only been months, he is unfit to sit in the oval office, Period. You may disagree, I do not care, the American People, the Congress, and the law are on my side, the guy has to go, do it now or wait until he is proven even more incompetent, but either way he needs to go, for the Good of the Nation.

[Captain Obvious]

Not enough options.

Need a: 1a) Generally happy but needs to focus more and not be distracted by all of the asshole left trying (and having some success) in distracting him, and fuck the GOP congress, vote those fucksticks out.

A fucking mole rat would have been an improvement over the last 8 years.

[Chris]

Not enough options.

Need a: 1a) Generally happy but needs to focus more and not be distracted by all of the asshole left trying (and having some success) in distracting him, and fuck the GOP congress, vote those fucksticks out.

A fucking mole rat would have been an improvement over the last 8 years.


https://i.snag.gy/KN2JVC.jpg?nocache=1495071122399

[Dr. Who]

It is really pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand it.

The Left hates this country. For years, they have been trying to undermine the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built. If they are applauding something, the odds are quite high that it is something that is bad for the US. If they are throwing fits and wailing, it means something good for the US is happening, has happened or is about to happen.

Countries change and people change. I don't see many (any) people dressing in powdered wigs and knickers or writing with quill pens either. The idea of an army isn't a bunch of guys carrying flintlocks and we no longer spend weeks going from New York to New Orleans. By this, I mean that the complexity of life has changed dramatically and continues to do so. America is no longer a relatively isolated outpost in the world. It has become a sophisticated superpower with a diverse population in the context of technology that is figuratively shrinking the planet. You can want the simplicity and ideals of a by-gone era, but the people have fundamentally changed and they don't want to live in the past.

[Chris]

Countries change and people change. I don't see many (any) people dressing in powdered wigs and knickers or writing with quill pens either. The idea of an army isn't a bunch of guys carrying flintlocks and we no longer spend weeks going from New York to New Orleans. By this, I mean that the complexity of life has changed dramatically and continues to do so. America is no longer a relatively isolated outpost in the world. It has become a sophisticated superpower with a diverse population in the context of technology that is figuratively shrinking the planet. You can want the simplicity and ideals of a by-gone era, but the people have fundamentally changed and they don't want to live in the past.


Yet you want rule of law but just argued change against its possibility.

[Dr. Who]

Yet you want rule of law but just argued change against its possibility.

Not at all. The laws have changed with the people.

[Kalkin]

Countries change and people change. I don't see many (any) people dressing in powdered wigs and knickers or writing with quill pens either. The idea of an army isn't a bunch of guys carrying flintlocks and we no longer spend weeks going from New York to New Orleans. By this, I mean that the complexity of life has changed dramatically and continues to do so. America is no longer a relatively isolated outpost in the world. It has become a sophisticated superpower with a diverse population in the context of technology that is figuratively shrinking the planet. You can want the simplicity and ideals of a by-gone era, but the people have fundamentally changed and they don't want to live in the past.If enough of them do, they can muster the votes to change the Constitution. Until such time, the old rules are still in place.

[Tahuyaman]

Well then, I do not disagree or want to take issue with a President just because. I was against Trump becoming President, as I was against Hillary becoming President, for different reasons, but I opposed both. I suggested at the time that we should have a None of the Above choice and if more than 50% had voted so they would need to replace the candidates, neither was fit IMO. That said, while against Trump for my issues with his ideas, I was hoping that he would get enough right and prove me wrong in my opposition to him. Not only did he not meet that low bar, he has managed to actually make me think less of him. I may lean off center Liberal, I still believe that this Nation can be better than we were, and it would not take much to be better than we are now. Trump has show he is ignorant of how the government works, he cannot be trusted with classified intel, he got real close to obstruction of justice charges (attempted is another story), he has hired controversial people to his cabinet, attacked the press (some warranted), and he is best friends forever with Putin and shown admiration for many of the other despots around globe, and on and on, and it has only been months, he is unfit to sit in the oval office, Period. You may disagree, I do not care, the American People, the Congress, and the law are on my side, the guy has to go, do it now or wait until he is proven even more incompetent, but either way he needs to go, for the Good of the Nation.


Take a breathe and try again.

[FindersKeepers]

The problem with choosing the lesser of evils is that you still end up with evil. People should have voted third party, spoiled their ballots or stayed home. Imagine if the entire country essentially said, you've got to be kidding - find me a candidate worthy of voting for or don't waste my time or insult my intelligence with a charade. The DNC and RNC have gone so far down the road of caring more about being in power for its own sake than caring about representing the people with a credible leader that both parties should be dissolved for cause.

The idea about everyone voting third party is nice -- but only in theory. Yes, the DNC and the RNC have lost their collective ways, but until a third party actually runs a viable challenger, it won't happen.

Logically, we're a long way from that point.

So, that leaves us with two major party candidates who can reasonably win. Even if you don't care too much for either, you should exercise your right to vote and vote for the lesser evil.

[Green Arrow]

The idea about everyone voting third party is nice -- but only in theory. Yes, the DNC and the RNC have lost their collective ways, but until a third party actually runs a viable challenger, it won't happen.

Logically, we're a long way from that point.

So, that leaves us with two major party candidates who can reasonably win. Even if you don't care too much for either, you should exercise your right to vote and vote for the lesser evil.

Logically, if everyone who disliked the two major parties voted third party, third parties would be viable. By voting R or D, you perpetuate the false dichotomy and help continue the very system you claim you oppose.

[IMPress Polly]

Doublejack wrote:
Eh, you must have me confused with someone else.

The only reason someone would support Trump and this obvious debacle of a presidency would be to be so full of hate as to ignore reality and replace it with spite of their perceived enemy.

Hmm. Must've been some random post you made a while back that I took as right-leaning. Admittedly, when it comes to this message board, I do tend to assume that people are Trump fanatics until proven innocent. :tongue: It's my cynical streak.


Private Pickle wrote:
My perspective? He shouldn't have been elected in the first place. He doesn't know how Washington works. He is turning the POTUS position into a reality TV character. He is unable to get anything done that matters. He isn't the master negotiator he claimed to be... He openly spews verbal diarrhea with absolutely no reasoning behind it. He instills confusion and uncertainty daily.

I could go on.

I had you pegged as a conservative Republican. Not that I'm complaining about being wrong! Your past sins are hereby forgiven. :wink:


Kalkin wrote:
Trump could do absolutely nothing and have the same reaction. The left is in the first stage of a 4-8 year menstrual cramp.

I could respond to that sexist remark with a quip about man-babies, but I understand that would be considered impolite enough to upset many people's delicate constitutions.


Chris wrote:
Besides, running a business is different than running a government. A business has to provide what customers want, a government has a captive audience.

A typical business is also more or less a plutocratic autocracy, where by contrast the government...well there's supposed to be a contrast anyway.


Those negatives with any substance probably are negative from Trump supporters.

Really? So you figure, for example, that the increase in ICE raids somehow hurts the average Trump voter? Or maybe the Muslim ban he keeps trying to implement? SOME of things Trump is trying to do will hurt Trump supporters if enacted (like the repeal of the Affordable Care Act), but other things definitely will not.


Cletus wrote:
The Left hates this country. For years, they have been trying to undermine the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was built. If they are applauding something, the odds are quite high that it is something that is bad for the US. If they are throwing fits and wailing, it means something good for the US is happening, has happened or is about to happen.

Accusing leftists of treason is kind of rich particularly in the current political environment wherein your man appears to be at least partially controlled by a hostile foreign government and you've got nothing to say about it. As an opponent of American imperialism, I may indeed not be the greatest patriot in American history, but even I can figure out that you haven't got a leg to stand on with THAT particular allegation. The fact that I oppose American imperialism doesn't mean that I support the empire-building efforts of other countries like frankly you seem to.


William wrote:
I find your statement a little confusing. Who exactly are 'the Left'? And if they are Americans, why would they hate their own country, and the ideals upon which it was built? This mass of people you call 'the Left' live in the USA - why would they applaud something which is obviously bad for where they live? It simply makes as much sense as saying your last President hated the USA - none at all.

Everyone has his own value systems, and his own ideas about how the society they live in should operate for the benefit of the maximum people - someone whose opinion is different from yours or mine, does not logically translate into that person being evil or hating the millions of people in our countries.

You're so polite, William! It's cute. :grin: You act like he meant that contribution in good faith or something.


Ethereal wrote:
I've said before that Trump is a dilettante, an egomaniac, and a natural authoritarian. I just do not believe he's an aberration in this regard.

This is where we differ. While I would characterize the average American politician as corrupt and bought, Trump, to my way of thinking, definitely represents a new level of that and definitely an exceptional level of authoritarianism. It is not simply openness about tyrannical attitudes with him. It is a difference of policy proposals. Like the president's ongoing efforts to impose his Muslim ban or censor the press (you know, "Let's open up our libel laws" and whatnot) or any number of other things that we could point to. That is stuff I have a hard time imagining even George W. Bush seriously trying in a hypothetical (and mercifully illegal) third term. Trump is exceptionally authoritarian and emotionally-driven and that combination makes him unusually dangerous, I think.


FindersKeepers wrote:
As I posted earlier, there are some things Trump has done of which I approve, but there are also things he's done that I do not approve of. So, I'm in the middle. Not 100% on either side.

Hmm. I get what you're saying, but I'm just not sure how one arrives at that position vis-a-vis this particular president at this point. :tongue: It seems like one should definitely have an overall opinion of Mr. Trump by now.


Dr. Who wrote:
The problem with choosing the lesser of evils is that you still end up with evil.

Oh I don't think Trump was the lesser evil here.


Mechanic wrote:
Trumputin is in no way a leader. He is a con artist and crook. He needs to be removed from office along with his gang of crooked republican nimbys.

I might not word it that crudely, but yeah, substantively speaking, that pretty much sums up my view of it.

[FindersKeepers]

Logically, if everyone who disliked the two major parties voted third party, third parties would be viable. By voting R or D, you perpetuate the false dichotomy and help continue the very system you claim you oppose.

Sure, "if everyone" did that -- we'd upset the major parties.

That's a very, very long way from happening, however, so it's really not even worth thinking about at this point.

Sometimes, we just have to face reality and work with what's happening in the here and now.

There was no viable third party candidate in the last election.

[William]

Sure, "if everyone" did that -- we'd upset the major parties.

That's a very, very long way from happening, however, so it's really not even worth thinking about at this point.

Sometimes, we just have to face reality and work with what's happening in the here and now.

There was no viable third party candidate in the last election.

Sorry, I know I'm showing my ignorance of the US political system, but cannot anyone run for election as the President?

In our system, we do not vote for a man, but for a political party. And I'm not totally sure about it, but I think any party which can get enough contributors is allowed to contest the elections. As you vote for a man or woman, surely it must be easier for any person to run as a viable Presidential candidate?

So isn't GA's point valid? If you keep voting for only the Democratic or Republican nominees - aren't you just perpetuating a corrupt situation? And isn't any system which put Mrs Clinton ahead of a sensible man like Bernie Sanders a silly one, anyway?

[FindersKeepers]

Sorry, I know I'm showing my ignorance of the US political system, but cannot anyone run for election as the President?

In our system, we do not vote for a man, but for a political party. And I'm not totally sure about it, but I think any party which can get enough contributors is allowed to contest the elections. As you vote for a man or woman, surely it must be easier for any person to run as a viable Presidential candidate?

So isn't GA's point valid? If you keep voting for only the Democratic or Republican nominees - aren't you just perpetuating a corrupt situation? And isn't any system which put Mrs Clinton ahead of a sensible man like Bernie Sanders a silly one, anyway?

GA has a point, it's just that it's not a workable point at this time in our nation.

Yes, anyone, given they meet the criteria, may run for the presidency.

I understand (I think) the idea behind your parliamentary governance, but our Founders wanted to make sure the President had power above that of the popular current party.

So, we have an electoral college that ensures that a successful candidate have widespread (geographical) support, rather than concentrated popular support, which would have allowed Hillary to win the last election.

The two major parties are private parties but they've dug in and made it difficult for third party candidates to get their names on state ballots. So, when GA says he wants third party candidates, he is also advocating, in a roundabout manner, that he wants to get rid of the electoral college, which makes it a requirement for a candidate to win a minimum of 270 electoral votes.

What has happened in our nation is that voters have polarized into two main camps, liberals and conservatives, represented by the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. There is a sliding scale of support within those parties. For example, I'm much more moderate than is Vice President Mike Pence, yet there are those who are even to right of him, hard as that is to believe.

Enter third party candidates. These third parties are typically drawn from the disgruntled in one of the two major parties. The Green Party is more like the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party is more like the GOP, but they are also fed up with the extremists (in their opinions) in those parties.

For a third party candidate to get his/her name on the ballot in any state, they have to demonstrate a high level of support from the voters in that state. That's the first cut that pulls most third party candidates out. Many third party candidates don't appear on all state ballots.

Then, we have the biggest issue which is third-party candidates throwing the election to the party they least resemble. I'm not sure of the Green Party final vote tally last year, but Jill Stein did not win any state's electoral votes. She did receive a number of votes however. Suppose that Stein won a few states. Two things could happen -- she would mostly likely draw her votes from the voters who would otherwise have supported the Democratic candidate, which might have reduced the electoral votes for Hillary, which in turn would have thrown the election to Trump, who is in the party both the Green Party and the Democrats most oppose.

The second thing that could happen is that, because a third party candidate absorbed electoral votes, neither of the two major party candidates reach the minimum of 270 votes. If that happens, the House or Representatives and the Senate choose both the President and the Vice President, but not necessarily from the same party. That vote could be highly partisan, depending on the current makeup in Congress.

So, that's a bit of the problem right now. GA is right in that "if everyone" voted for a third party candidate, it would destroy the two major parties. But, the US citizens are nowhere near ready to accept that. And, it's like pissing in the wind. You don't really know who Congress will elect if no candidate gets enough electoral votes.

The thing about Sanders was unfortunate, indeed, but the DNC is a private party and they do have the right to choose among the candidates they want to support.

[Chris]

Sorry, I know I'm showing my ignorance of the US political system, but cannot anyone run for election as the President?

In our system, we do not vote for a man, but for a political party. And I'm not totally sure about it, but I think any party which can get enough contributors is allowed to contest the elections. As you vote for a man or woman, surely it must be easier for any person to run as a viable Presidential candidate?

So isn't GA's point valid? If you keep voting for only the Democratic or Republican nominees - aren't you just perpetuating a corrupt situation? And isn't any system which put Mrs Clinton ahead of a sensible man like Bernie Sanders a silly one, anyway?



Well, that's the myth of a government supposed to be of, for and by the people. But running for office requires tons of money. Many sell out. Some fund themselves, like Trump, or Ross Perot.

[donttread]

So I thought I'd test and see just how far afield from actual public opinion the overall view from PF is on this subject. As of this date (May 17th), the most recent three major polls (all the ones conducted on the subject this month to date) show the president's job approval rating in the upper 30s and disapproval in the mid-to-upper 50s (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job.htm) and likewise the Gallup daily tracking poll shows the same trend (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job1.htm). Let's see just how far away from that the general opinion is on this message board: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing as president?

Never cowardly about staing a position, but the jury is still out. So far mostly disapprove as he's like another Donkephant only with too much caffine on board

[Chris]

Polly: "A typical business is also more or less a plutocratic autocracy, where by contrast the government...well there's supposed to be a contrast anyway."

And a business is by voluntary agreements and a government by force.

[Green Arrow]

GA has a point, it's just that it's not a workable point at this time in our nation.

Sure it is. It just takes courage and conviction.

[IMPress Polly]

Green Arrow wrote:
Sure it is. It just takes courage and conviction.

I don't know if even I still have enough courage and conviction left to try going the third party route again when it comes to national elections. Not after last year. That was just really depressing. The major parties both nominated the most hated candidates in their histories in the same year, so to me it seems like if there was to be an opportunity for a break-out by a third party candidate, that would've been it, but it STILL didn't happen. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians were able to capitalize on the situation, and it was as much their own fault as the system's. Honestly, I'm kind of embarrassed now to have been associated with Jill Stein's campaign. It just seems like this two-party system is all but formally institutionalized in this country (at least at the national level). It doesn't seem like there's any beating that system. I just don't know what to do about it. I certainly don't want Donald Trump "re"-elected and that's for sure. Four months has been far more than enough for a lifetime for my taste. I wasn't the biggest Obama fan, but I'd go back to Obama in a heartbeat if it were possible. I can't fathom a second Trump term. Hell, I can't even fathom the next three years and eight months! I mean the only reason I didn't wind up leaving the country in November was because I saw this movement arise and it's given me just a glimmer of hope that maybe (MAYBE) all is not lost yet. But if that proves not to be enough in 2020...I don't think I'll be able to handle it. I really will have to leave America.

All I can think of to do that sounds even remotely practical and realistic is to fight in the primaries. I mean I don't think even that really works (as I think we are simply outnumbered, to say nothing of out-financed), but what else is there that has any chance at all? Don't BS me about that. Be realistic and honest.

Let me be even more to the point. Here's where I think our politics are headed in the long run: this election was about white panic over the changing demographic composition of America. That situation is bound to only get more extreme over time, especially as eventually we become a minority-majority nation over the next three or four decades. White panic is going to increase and encompass larger and larger shares of the white population. Voting will break down more or less strictly along racial lines by 2030, I expect, kind of like it always has in the U.S. South. (That's how the Republicans always win there.) But imagine when people of color are the majority. Then you will have a situation wherein white people will still control the police, the army, the businesses, the government, etc., despite being a minority of the population. That's going to provoke rebellion.Voting will no longer work in terms of appeasing white panic mode. White people will become more and more anti-democratic under those circumstances, much as they're already starting to precisely because democracy will tend to erode their political power at that point. Then we will have a genuine race war. And that will be the end of America as a notable country in world history. That is my positive and optimistic view of the future.

[FindersKeepers]

Sure it is. It just takes courage and conviction.

It takes a lot more than that.

I didn't pay attention to the percentages in the last election, but I doubt either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party garnered 5% of the vote. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

That means neither party will qualify for federal funds in 2020. And you still have the EC problem, which isn't going to go away.

The answer is probably not to dump the two-party system but rather for the people to get involved at the local and state levels in grooming and nominating the candidates to these two parties.

Right now, voting third party is probably a vote cast for the major party candidate you like the least.

There is something to be said for voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Mister D]

I don't know if even I still have enough courage and conviction left to try going the third party route again when it comes to national elections. Not after last year. That was just really depressing. The major parties both nominated the most hated candidates in their histories in the same year, so to me it seems like if there was to be an opportunity for a break-out by a third party candidate, that would've been it, but it STILL didn't happen. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians were able to capitalize on the situation, and it was as much their own fault as the system's. Honestly, I'm kind of embarrassed now to have been associated with Jill Stein's campaign. It just seems like this two-party system is all but formally institutionalized in this country (at least at the national level). It doesn't seem like there's any beating that system. I just don't know what to do about it. I certainly don't want Donald Trump "re"-elected and that's for sure. Four months has been far more than enough for a lifetime for my taste. I wasn't the biggest Obama fan, but I'd go back to Obama in a heartbeat if it were possible. I can't fathom a second Trump term. Hell, I can't even fathom the next three years and eight months! I mean the only reason I didn't wind up leaving the country in November was because I saw this movement arise and it's given me just a glimmer of hope that maybe (MAYBE) all is not lost yet. But if that proves not to be enough in 2020...I don't think I'll be able to handle it. I really will have to leave America.

All I can think of to do that sounds even remotely practical and realistic is to fight in the primaries. I mean I don't think even that really works (as I think we are simply outnumbered, to say nothing of out-financed), but what else is there that has any chance at all? Don't BS me about that. Be realistic and honest.

Let me be even more to the point. Here's where I think our politics are headed in the long run: this election was about white panic over the changing demographic composition of America. That situation is bound to only get more extreme over time, especially as eventually we become a minority-majority nation over the next three or four decades. White panic is going to increase and encompass larger and larger shares of the white population. Voting will break down more or less strictly along racial lines by 2030, I expect, kind of like it always has in the U.S. South. (That's how the Republicans always win there.) But imagine when people of color are the majority. Then you will have a situation wherein white people will still control the police, the army, the businesses, the government, etc., despite being a minority of the population. That's going to provoke rebellion.Voting will no longer work in terms of appeasing white panic mode. White people will become more and more anti-democratic under those circumstances, much as they're already starting to precisely because democracy will tend to erode their political power at that point. Then we will have a genuine race war. And that will be the end of America as a notable country in world history. That is my positive and optimistic view of the future.
I hope you're right.

It's the bed you made. Now lie in it.

[Ethereal]

I don't know if even I still have enough courage and conviction left to try going the third party route again when it comes to national elections. Not after last year. That was just really depressing. The major parties both nominated the most hated candidates in their histories in the same year, so to me it seems like if there was to be an opportunity for a break-out by a third party candidate, that would've been it, but it STILL didn't happen. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians were able to capitalize on the situation, and it was as much their own fault as the system's. Honestly, I'm kind of embarrassed now to have been associated with Jill Stein's campaign. It just seems like this two-party system is all but formally institutionalized in this country (at least at the national level). It doesn't seem like there's any beating that system. I just don't know what to do about it. I certainly don't want Donald Trump "re"-elected and that's for sure. Four months has been far more than enough for a lifetime for my taste. I wasn't the biggest Obama fan, but I'd go back to Obama in a heartbeat if it were possible. I can't fathom a second Trump term. Hell, I can't even fathom the next three years and eight months! I mean the only reason I didn't wind up leaving the country in November was because I saw this movement arise and it's given me just a glimmer of hope that maybe (MAYBE) all is not lost yet. But if that proves not to be enough in 2020...I don't think I'll be able to handle it. I really will have to leave America.

All I can think of to do that sounds even remotely practical and realistic is to fight in the primaries. I mean I don't think even that really works (as I think we are simply outnumbered, to say nothing of out-financed), but what else is there that has any chance at all? Don't BS me about that. Be realistic and honest.

Let me be even more to the point. Here's where I think our politics are headed in the long run: this election was about white panic over the changing demographic composition of America. That situation is bound to only get more extreme over time, especially as eventually we become a minority-majority nation over the next three or four decades. White panic is going to increase and encompass larger and larger shares of the white population. Voting will break down more or less strictly along racial lines by 2030, I expect, kind of like it always has in the U.S. South. (That's how the Republicans always win there.) But imagine when people of color are the majority. Then you will have a situation wherein white people will still control the police, the army, the businesses, the government, etc., despite being a minority of the population. That's going to provoke rebellion.Voting will no longer work in terms of appeasing white panic mode. White people will become more and more anti-democratic under those circumstances, much as they're already starting to precisely because democracy will tend to erode their political power at that point. Then we will have a genuine race war. And that will be the end of America as a notable country in world history. That is my positive and optimistic view of the future.
The solution is a peaceable, organized dissolution of the union. Opposing factions cannot coexist peacefully under a unitary political system. It has never worked in history and it isn't working now.

[Mister D]

The solution is a peaceable, organized dissolution of the union. Opposing factions cannot coexist peacefully under a unitary political system. It has never worked in history and it isn't working now.
One could thus argue that our immigration policy has destroyed the state.

[Ethereal]

One could thus argue that our immigration policy has destroyed the state.
It's certainly a factor. Ethnic and racial divisions have always portended poorly for political unions. However, I think the union, from its inception, was fatally flawed, and that the so-called anti-federalists essentially predicted everything that would happen. Endless bickering, contention, intrigues, and even war. In other words, we should have listened to Patrick Henry and Melancton Smith, among others.

[Chris]

I don't know if even I still have enough courage and conviction left to try going the third party route again when it comes to national elections. Not after last year. That was just really depressing. The major parties both nominated the most hated candidates in their histories in the same year, so to me it seems like if there was to be an opportunity for a break-out by a third party candidate, that would've been it, but it STILL didn't happen. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians were able to capitalize on the situation, and it was as much their own fault as the system's. Honestly, I'm kind of embarrassed now to have been associated with Jill Stein's campaign. It just seems like this two-party system is all but formally institutionalized in this country (at least at the national level). It doesn't seem like there's any beating that system. I just don't know what to do about it. I certainly don't want Donald Trump "re"-elected and that's for sure. Four months has been far more than enough for a lifetime for my taste. I wasn't the biggest Obama fan, but I'd go back to Obama in a heartbeat if it were possible. I can't fathom a second Trump term. Hell, I can't even fathom the next three years and eight months! I mean the only reason I didn't wind up leaving the country in November was because I saw this movement arise and it's given me just a glimmer of hope that maybe (MAYBE) all is not lost yet. But if that proves not to be enough in 2020...I don't think I'll be able to handle it. I really will have to leave America.

All I can think of to do that sounds even remotely practical and realistic is to fight in the primaries. I mean I don't think even that really works (as I think we are simply outnumbered, to say nothing of out-financed), but what else is there that has any chance at all? Don't BS me about that. Be realistic and honest.

Let me be even more to the point. Here's where I think our politics are headed in the long run: this election was about white panic over the changing demographic composition of America. That situation is bound to only get more extreme over time, especially as eventually we become a minority-majority nation over the next three or four decades. White panic is going to increase and encompass larger and larger shares of the white population. Voting will break down more or less strictly along racial lines by 2030, I expect, kind of like it always has in the U.S. South. (That's how the Republicans always win there.) But imagine when people of color are the majority. Then you will have a situation wherein white people will still control the police, the army, the businesses, the government, etc., despite being a minority of the population. That's going to provoke rebellion.Voting will no longer work in terms of appeasing white panic mode. White people will become more and more anti-democratic under those circumstances, much as they're already starting to precisely because democracy will tend to erode their political power at that point. Then we will have a genuine race war. And that will be the end of America as a notable country in world history. That is my positive and optimistic view of the future.

It wasn't about race and oppression and all that old stuff, it was about enough people frustrated with that old status quo politics as usual. Trump represented their hope, whether he fullfils that hope is another thing. Obama fail to fullfil hope as well.

[Mister D]

It's certainly a factor. Ethnic and racial divisions have always portended poorly for political unions. However, I think the union, from its inception, was fatally flawed, and that the so-called anti-federalists essentially predicted everything that would happen. Endless bickering, contention, intrigues, and even war. In other words, we should have listened to Patrick Henry and Melancton Smith, among others.
Not sure I agree that this was inevitable. I think it's a shame. The only upshot is that this mess will be a reminder to the world that a nation is a biocultural entity not merely an idea.

[Ethereal]

In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.
--"Brutus", 1787

[Mister D]

It's certainly a factor. Ethnic and racial divisions have always portended poorly for political unions. However, I think the union, from its inception, was fatally flawed, and that the so-called anti-federalists essentially predicted everything that would happen. Endless bickering, contention, intrigues, and even war. In other words, we should have listened to Patrick Henry and Melancton Smith, among others.
Let me add that the logic of diversity is so counter-intuitive one wonders how anyone could believe it.

[Ethereal]

Let me add that the logic of diversity is so counter-intuitive one wonders how anyone could believe it.
It's also worth noting that people who promote "diversity" and "multiculturalism" don't actually believe in those concepts in any meaningful sense. In fact, the political policies they promote tend towards the homogenization of culture.

[Bo-4]

Interestingly your mini-poll pretty much echoes the real ones.

Trumpf - a 35%-er and there for the long run.

[Chris]

Interestingly your mini-poll pretty much echoes the real ones.

Trumpf - a 35%-er and there for the long run.


So then all the complaints about the forum are bull hockey. We're just all normal SOBs.

[Mister D]

It's also worth noting that people who promote "diversity" and "multiculturalism" don't actually believe in those concepts in any meaningful sense. In fact, the political policies they promote tend towards the homogenization of culture.
Indeed, sir. The diversity they promote is superficial. In fact, they fear genuine human differences.

[Green Arrow]

I don't know if even I still have enough courage and conviction left to try going the third party route again when it comes to national elections. Not after last year. That was just really depressing. The major parties both nominated the most hated candidates in their histories in the same year, so to me it seems like if there was to be an opportunity for a break-out by a third party candidate, that would've been it, but it STILL didn't happen. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians were able to capitalize on the situation, and it was as much their own fault as the system's. Honestly, I'm kind of embarrassed now to have been associated with Jill Stein's campaign. It just seems like this two-party system is all but formally institutionalized in this country (at least at the national level). It doesn't seem like there's any beating that system. I just don't know what to do about it. I certainly don't want Donald Trump "re"-elected and that's for sure. Four months has been far more than enough for a lifetime for my taste. I wasn't the biggest Obama fan, but I'd go back to Obama in a heartbeat if it were possible. I can't fathom a second Trump term. Hell, I can't even fathom the next three years and eight months! I mean the only reason I didn't wind up leaving the country in November was because I saw this movement arise and it's given me just a glimmer of hope that maybe (MAYBE) all is not lost yet. But if that proves not to be enough in 2020...I don't think I'll be able to handle it. I really will have to leave America.

All I can think of to do that sounds even remotely practical and realistic is to fight in the primaries. I mean I don't think even that really works (as I think we are simply outnumbered, to say nothing of out-financed), but what else is there that has any chance at all? Don't BS me about that. Be realistic and honest.

Let me be even more to the point. Here's where I think our politics are headed in the long run: this election was about white panic over the changing demographic composition of America. That situation is bound to only get more extreme over time, especially as eventually we become a minority-majority nation over the next three or four decades. White panic is going to increase and encompass larger and larger shares of the white population. Voting will break down more or less strictly along racial lines by 2030, I expect, kind of like it always has in the U.S. South. (That's how the Republicans always win there.) But imagine when people of color are the majority. Then you will have a situation wherein white people will still control the police, the army, the businesses, the government, etc., despite being a minority of the population. That's going to provoke rebellion.Voting will no longer work in terms of appeasing white panic mode. White people will become more and more anti-democratic under those circumstances, much as they're already starting to precisely because democracy will tend to erode their political power at that point. Then we will have a genuine race war. And that will be the end of America as a notable country in world history. That is my positive and optimistic view of the future.

Honestly, realistically? Nothing lasts forever. All we need is the right candidate. While I liked Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, they weren't the right candidates. Bernie was, but we didn't get him. In four years, though? The gap between Berniecrats and the Clinton wing will get closer, and think about it: several states are already doing away with superdelegates, or at least tying the distribution of superdelegates to their state's primary results. We barely lost to the Hillary wing last year, with those two changes alone we could probably win. We just need to find the right candidate and then go balls-to-the-wall for them.

[Green Arrow]

It takes a lot more than that.

I didn't pay attention to the percentages in the last election, but I doubt either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party garnered 5% of the vote. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

That means neither party will qualify for federal funds in 2020. And you still have the EC problem, which isn't going to go away.

The answer is probably not to dump the two-party system but rather for the people to get involved at the local and state levels in grooming and nominating the candidates to these two parties.

Right now, voting third party is probably a vote cast for the major party candidate you like the least.
The flaw in that tired old argument is that the only way it works is if I would have voted for the R or D if the third party candidate I voted for wasn't on the ballot. Which isn't the case. If Trump and Clinton were the only two presidential candidates on the ballot, I would have skipped the president section of the ballot. So it's completely illogical and mathematically unsound to suggest that somehow my not voting for Clinton or Trump is basically a vote for the one of them I like least.

There is something to be said for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Yes, there is. Luckily, it's already been said: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[Green Arrow]

So then all the complaints about the forum are bull hockey. We're just all normal SOBs.

Normal? I thought we were friends, then you go and insult me like that.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPEsmYjd6aPHW6c/giphy.gif

[Chris]

Normal? I thought we were friends, then you go and insult me like that.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPEsmYjd6aPHW6c/giphy.gif

OK, there's always exceptions.

[William]

OK, there's always exceptions.

Lol, this thread has got totally too serious, so it's time for me to do my Grammar Nazi thing. :evil:

'Exceptions' being a plural, it should be "OK, there are always exceptions."

Sorry, de debbil made me do it. :sofa:

[sachem]

Hate him.

[Kalkin]

I could respond to that sexist remark with a quip about man-babies, but I understand that would be considered impolite enough to upset many people's delicate constitutions.
Please do, and feel free to be as sexist as you'd like. Polite women rarely make history, after all.

[Safety]

It's also worth noting that people who promote "diversity" and "multiculturalism" don't actually believe in those concepts in any meaningful sense. In fact, the political policies they promote tend towards the homogenization of culture.

For example?

[Bethere]

The solution is a peaceable, organized dissolution of the union. Opposing factions cannot coexist peacefully under a unitary political system. It has never worked in history and it isn't working now.

Not going to happen.

[Hal Jordan]

It's also worth noting that people who promote "diversity" and "multiculturalism" don't actually believe in those concepts in any meaningful sense. In fact, the political policies they promote tend towards the homogenization of culture.
To be fair, I think difference helps progress. I don't want America to be "homogenized" at all. I feel that making the disparate portions to be the same only hurts us. Allowing difference allows us to look at the same problems from different angles, which allows us to see things we wouldn't otherwise. I don't want a "melting pot" and think it would be stupid in the end.

[Docthehun]

Things I approve: I've no problem with rounding up the worst of the illegals, like the M-13 crowd and sending them packing.
I concur the governmental regulation program (from the Fed down to the locals) is outdated and overly burdensome.
I like a fair amount of his cabinet choices, from Rex, Mattis, McMaster to Sonny Perdue.
I like Gorsuch as the SCOTUS choice.
I like the notion of a tax cut even though I'd have a totally different approach.

On the other side: I'm not the least fond of unprofessional, let alone, un-Presidential personal conduct.
His White House staff.
Being smart, but not close to being a scholar.
Hair trigger finger.

[IMPress Polly]

Green Arrow wrote:
Honestly, realistically? Nothing lasts forever. All we need is the right candidate. While I liked Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, they weren't the right candidates. Bernie was, but we didn't get him. In four years, though? The gap between Berniecrats and the Clinton wing will get closer, and think about it: several states are already doing away with superdelegates, or at least tying the distribution of superdelegates to their state's primary results. We barely lost to the Hillary wing last year, with those two changes alone we could probably win. We just need to find the right candidate and then go balls-to-the-wall for them.

While I'm all for doing away with the superdelegates, there's a fundamental problem with your line of argument: the Clinton campaign also won the popular vote by a margin of 14 points (57% to 43% overall), which really isn't that terribly close, especially when you consider how unpopular Clinton was. Now some people respond to that by pointing out the closed primaries that many states used to suggest that, in a contest that consistently allowed independent voters to cast ballots, Sanders would have done better, but that isn't necessarily true when you consider the fact that, as I recall, most of the states Sanders won in were caucus states. The caucus process is an older system designed to limit voter turnout as much as possible in such a way as to ensure that only hardened activists have enough determination to go through the process and cast ballots; a set-up that structurally favored Sanders, given that the activist energy was on his side. If they were all open primaries and there were no superdelegates -- i.e. if the process were as genuinely democratic and open as possible -- the contest in delegate terms might have been closer, but it seems unlikely that the actual vote ratio would have been much closer.

Lest you think I'm a total pessimist though, conversely, while it's true enough to say that there is always a labor candidate in the Democratic primaries (by which here I mean a candidate substantively for actual working class people more than a candidate broadly endorsed by the labor unions) and that that candidate seems to always lose anymore, it is also true to say that there was something genuinely different about last year's contest in that the youth were the driving force behind the Sanders campaign, and the youth, of course, define the future. In the election contests that I've grown up under, the youth never backed a comparable candidate. In the 1992 primaries, the youth favored Bill Clinton. In the 2004 primaries, they (including me myself) favored Howard Dean (the labor candidate being John Edwards). In 2008, they favored Barack Obama (a candidate in many ways similar to Dean). But this time they supported the labor candidate, having come full circle from the position of the youth in '92, at least on economics. One then becomes hopeful that, as that generation grows up, they will form a larger share of the electorate; enough to tip the balance. That is indeed a genuinely hopeful prospect!

There are problems with relying on such a deterministic view of it all though. For example, Hillary Clinton was an unusually weak establishment candidate and the party establishment may favor a less transparently fake one next time (like Joe Biden for example). That might make a difference in how much populist energy there is. The sides also may not each rally around a single candidate early on like they did in the 2016 contest either. What if, for example, we go into 2020 with the corporate establishment wing united around Joe Biden and the economic populist wing divided up between several candidates for a long time? After all, reporting has it that, in addition to Joe Biden, fully one-fourth of the Senate's Democratic Caucus is already weighing the possibility of a 2020 presidential run, as is at least one celebrity (Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson :rollseyes:) and that includes a lot of progressive Senators. While that's a very good thing, as it shows you which side the momentum is on right now, it also makes for the possibility of more division during the primaries themselves than we saw last year.

Another challenge may be the different gender dynamics of the 2020 contest. There's little question that the Resistance will be a big factor in the 2020 primaries and it's about 80% female. I don't want to get metaphysical about that, but it definitely means there will a different kind of energy than what we saw in 2016. Women have not traditionally belonged to the activist camp of American politics in a big way until now. This last election seems to have been the factor that changed that fundamentally. Any candidate of the working class who wishes to harness that energy (and one would be foolish not to try) must come to understand that energy in its newness to the political arena.

My point is that it may not all be as simple as "going balls to the wall for them". We have to know who "we" are and who "they" are.

[Robo]

So I thought I'd test and see just how far afield from actual public opinion the overall view from PF is on this subject. As of this date (May 17th), the most recent three major polls (all the ones conducted on the subject this month to date) show the president's job approval rating in the upper 30s and disapproval in the mid-to-upper 50s (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job.htm) and likewise the Gallup daily tracking poll shows the same trend (http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job1.htm). Let's see just how far away from that the general opinion is on this message board: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing as president?

I do believe there's also a poll that shows that if the Trump/Clinton election were held again Trump would win again by even a bigger EC vote and probably even the popular vote. Seem Hillary's popularity is slipping even further than Trumps, huh?

[Green Arrow]

I do believe there's also a poll that shows that if the Trump/Clinton election were held again Trump would win again by even a bigger EC vote and probably even the popular vote. Seem Hillary's popularity is slipping even further than Trumps, huh?

Hillary became irrelevant as of November 9, 2016.