Jump to content

The Trump Presidency


silentbob1272
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

You probably should have read the article. I'm no CNN fan but what was actually in the article was reasonable and fair. I even understand HD's position.

"we look forward to a visit in the future" In other words liberals are planning to be disruptive and showing their collective butts so we think it is best to wait. I do not think it was a statement against Trump. They realize that the instigators are a small minority being organized.

The fact that Companies are even that worried is major. When has that happened to Obama. This just backs up the statements from aides that the protests have been unprecedented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

It only worked for the Republicans because they won the presidential election. Otherwise, they would just be confirming Hillary's nominee. Elections have consequences. 

Sure, it would be satisfying to do the same thing back to them, but at what point does it stop? Plus if you do this just to be obstructive, then it diminishes the legitimate issues with Trump's sketchy nominees like Sessions and DeVos. 

I didn't say I agree, just giving another reason. And, as gafan noted, republicans have shown the gamble could be worth it. It's not like that was the last election. Dems could gamble on taking control of the senate in a couple years.

As I've said, I hope he's confirmed. But if he is, you will not see the republicans bend again. Not anytime soon. They will be vindicated. And I know you're of the "both parties are equally bad" mindset, but the republicans have offered unprecedented obstruction over the past 8 years and will be rewarded. There's no turning back. So no, it won't be a return to good governing if Dems confirm. It will just be an emboldened, uncompromising Republican Party and a spineless democrat party hoping desperately that zealots will finally see reason.

Edited by BrockSamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Trump won 3 states by less than 80k votes. I wouldn't assume Dems in those states are scared. The only dems they gotta worry are Manchin(sp) from WV, Tester from MT, and Heidi Heidkamp(sp) from ND. Maybe Claire McCaskill from MO and Dem senator from Indy need to worry, but that is about it. 

And Trump is very unpopular. 2018 is a referendum on Trump. Not on Hillary or Obama. He no longer had HRC to rally the base. 2018 Map looks good for republicans with dems defending so many seats in the senate, but crazy things can happen. All depends on DNC and how popular Trump is. 

It looks even better because I do not think these last couple of months are going to be easily forgotten and how the left is threatening the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

It looks even better because I do not think these last couple of months are going to be easily forgotten and how the left is threatening the country.

The left thought the same thing when the right shut down the government. Protests are not even a blimp when compared to the shutdown. We have already had multiple marches/protests and more planned and Trump has only implemented  the ban. Wait til the deportation and ACA repeal happens. 

Also watch the DNC chair race. I think you will see a lot of Bernie folk who shunned HRC comeback into the fold if Ellison wins Chair. Also plan. Next DNC Chair has to have a plan on how to build up democrats from local up. It will be really interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GEORGIAfan said:

The left thought the same thing when the right shut down the government. Protests are not even a blimp when compared to the shutdown. We have already had multiple marches/protests and more planned and Trump has only implemented  the ban. Wait til the deportation and ACA repeal happens. 

Also watch the DNC chair race. I think you will see a lot of Bernie folk who shunned HRC comeback into the fold if Ellison wins Chair. Also plan. Next DNC Chair has to have a plan on how to build up democrats from local up. It will be really interesting. 

I think more of those millennials oppose Ellison than you think. Maybe the ones in those same 30 or 40 counties but not much after that. Ellison will continue the trend of radicalizing your party though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

If the only reason to block him is what the GOP did to Garland, then we can ask why any nominee should ever not be blocked. 

Otherwise, is there a legitimate reason to block him? He seems qualified. 

Garland was qualified.  The GOP set the precedent -- block anyone nominated by the other party just because it's from the other party.  Why shouldn't Democrats follow that precedent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

It only worked for the Republicans because they won the presidential election. Otherwise, they would just be confirming Hillary's nominee. Elections have consequences. 

Sure, it would be satisfying to do the same thing back to them, but at what point does it stop? Plus if you do this just to be obstructive, then it diminishes the legitimate issues with Trump's sketchy nominees like Sessions and DeVos. 

But it worked, according to you.  Republicans held up Garland's nomination for an entire year.  Where does it stop?  The precedent has been set...the opposition party opposes everything the president proposes.  A minority of 40 senators gets an effective veto on everything the president does regarding legislation and SCOTUS picks.  Why shouldn't Democrats follow the precedent that's already been set?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Polls were pretty accurate at the national level. State level not so much, but there was was very little polling happening after the Comey Letter. 

Also Presidents lose seats. Bush Lost Seats. Obama Lost Seats. Clinton Lost Seats. 

Republicans lost seats in November, also.  They seem to forget that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrockSamson said:

I didn't say I agree, just giving another reason. And, as gafan noted, republicans have shown the gamble could be worth it. It's not like that was the last election. Dems could gamble on taking control of the senate in a couple years.

As I've said, I hope he's confirmed. But if he is, you will not see the republicans bend again. Not anytime soon. They will be vindicated. And I know you're of the "both parties are equally bad" mindset, but the republicans have offered unprecedented obstruction over the past 8 years and will be rewarded. There's no turning back. So no, it won't be a return to good governing if Dems confirm. It will just be an emboldened, uncompromising Republican Party and a spineless democrat party hoping desperately that zealots will finally see reason.

This and this...1000x this.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a breakdown of some of the polls and the tricks played with them.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/poll-shows-public-support-trump-migration-poicy/

Donald Trump’s pro-American immigration reform is getting strong majority support from the public, despite the left’s portrayal of the policy as hateful and incompetent, and despite Democratic voters’ determination to obstruct the new president.

Reuters commissioned the poll and then tried to hide the resulting good news for Trump under a misleading headline, “Exclusive: Only a third of Americans think Trump’s travel ban will make them more safe.”

But the most direct question in the poll showed a seven-point advantage for Trump’s policy, of 48 support to 41 percent opposition.

Screen Shot 2017-01-31 at 8.41.36 PM

Screen Shot 2017-01-31 at 9.19.44 PM

However, that hard-edged “blocking refugees and banning people” question is not conclusive because most Americans want to help both their fellow Americans and foreign strangers. Americans’ generous attitude ensures that they are often reluctant to show favoritism to their fellow nationals or opposition to foreign migrants. So their hidden views can be teased out by asking indirect questions.

 

One indirect question used by Reuters’ pollster asked if the United States should “limit the number of refugees allowed into the country.” That question scored 66 percent support to 26 percent opposition, showing overwhelming yet hidden support for Trump’s new policy of welcoming a limited inflow of refugees while excluding hostile migrants.

Screen Shot 2017-01-31 at 8.54.49 PM

Better still for Trump, the “strong” support for his refugee-limiting policy was three times as large as the “strong” opposition, 32 percent to 10 percent, and the GOP voters’ response was very similar to the response from swing-voting independents.

Trump’s policy has ignited a debate on refugee inflows from Muslim majority countries. But the core part of Trump’s policy is a shift towards rejection of would-be migrants whose culture and ideas are hostile to Americans’ traditions of personal independence and small government. Here is the critical passage from Trump’s pro-American immigration policy:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The American public’s contradictory emotions slide in various directions, depending on minor changes to questions.

For example, when asked by Reuters’ pollster if the U.S. should “open our borders to refugees of foreign conflicts,” the percentage of respondents strongly supporting an apparently unlimited number of refugees jumped up to 19 percent, almost double the 10 percent in the prior “limit the number of refugees” question.

Screen Shot 2017-01-31 at 9.05.39 PM

That question and answer suggests that Americans do not recognize the “open borders” term as a left-wing code-word for mass migration by 100 million people from Africa, Arabia and Asia.

The new poll was conducted by Ipsos polling, from Jan. 30 to Jan. 31, on behalf Thomson Reuters. It included roughly 1,201 adults, with 453 declared Democrats, 478 declared Republicans, and 149 declared independents.

Many polls show that the public wants the federal government to cap or shrink immigration. For example, a September poll by Ipsos showed that only 12 percent of respondents strongly opposed plans to “change the legal immigration system to limit legal immigration.” Four times as many, or 57 percent, back reductions in legal immigration, while 13 percent did not take a position.

In 2016, under policies set by President Barack Obama, roughly one new immigrant or foreign contract-worker joined the U.S. workforce for every two Americans who entered the workforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely they understand the obstruction was a gamble, betting on a Republican winning the White House. Plus the fact that so many important decisions on cases viewed as an outright war against Christian values have been won or lost on a 5-4 count. Much of that obstruction was based on tangible goals within reach. The DNC does not have that level of gain to play with... they could actually lose more.

I agree they are definitely playing with fire. Trump may be supremely unpopular with most Democrats, but he has proven that he uses that noise to drum up support. I honestly think the greatly exaggerated rhetoric is going to bite them in the *** because the hypocrisy is just too obvious to point out.

I understand this is partisan America and this is what we do... D's bytch about R's and R's bytch about D's. D's are taking serious L's, as Gritz pointed out. They may be able to get away with stonewalling Gorsuch for a little while due to the protesting and whatnot, but it's very hard for me to see how that works out positively for them. The temporary ban will end, as will the protests... then what? Maybe they're counting on the media turning everything Trump does into a circus. As much as I don't like the guy, Trump has proven immune to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Gotta love this race to declare what the vast majority of your fellow Americans  are thinking when none of us truely have any ****ing idea. 

(Or is it that we only count the subgroups that we consider as "real Americans" :rolleyes: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: You guys crack me up. Anything that supports your beliefs is a mandate revolution. But if the other team starts making noise, nope not real! Their a bunch of paid actors and phony Americans. "Look! Look at all this red from areas where less than 2000 people live in a 100 mile radius and for some reason I assume that of the ones that did they each and all voted for Trump"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DewTheMathis said:

I think we can all agree that California state has some SERIOUS problems, from bankruptcy to enforcing laws.  When Hillary Clinton defeated Trump in CA by over 4.2 million votes (are you really sure that all her CA votes were real legal registered voters)?  I guarantee if President Trump does actually investigate the voting fraud the top of the list of offenders is CA state!

Yeah.....not really. I'm seeing a lot of claims and no evidence, other than it fits a nice and tidy narrative that Trump is so totally popular you guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And frankly what the heII is a real American anyway? Heck even in Alaska which is as red and rural as it gets and a place Trump won as comfortably as anywhere else "Hillary corrupt as heck Clinton" still got 100k votes to Trump's 150k. It's a good margin to be sure as far as a comfortable victory where you can take all anyway but your also trying to sweep in the other third into your narrative of "all real Americans support Trump"

This also gets magnified into the millions  when you take it to the lower 48 with MUCH MUCH MUCH thinner %s. Did Trump take the majority of the heartland? Well yeah, but HRC ugly candidate as she was also matches up with millions of her own votes in those areas, just as she didn't always reign supreme in the cities and Trump probably got sizeable raw numbers (but lesser of the share) from populated areas.

And this is the key.....

Even if you want to buy Trump's bullchit and make the unproven ego claim that HRC picked up 3 million less "real" votes than she was ultimately given it was still an even split by the slimmest of margins to then turn around and claim "most Americans support Trump". And keep in mind Hillary was NOT a popular candidate. Now great Satan that she clearly was...... if America as a whole is as eager for some Trump love, how come he barely beat that **** candidate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atl falcon 89 said:

And frankly what the heII is a real American anyway? Heck even in Alaska which is as red and rural as it gets and a place Trump won as comfortably as anywhere else "Hillary corrupt as heck Clinton" still got 100k votes to Trump's 150k. It's a good margin to be sure as far as a comfortable victory where you can take all anyway but your also trying to sweep in the other third into your narrative of "all real Americans support Trump"

This also gets magnified into the millions  when you take it to the lower 48 with MUCH MUCH MUCH thinner %s. Did Trump take the majority of the heartland? Well yeah, but HRC ugly candidate as she was also matches up with millions of her own votes in those areas, just as she didn't always reign supreme in the cities and Trump probably got sizeable raw numbers (but lesser of the share) from populated areas.

And this is the key.....

Even if you want to buy Trump's bullchit and make the unproven ego claim that HRC picked up 3 million less "real" votes than she was ultimately given it was still an even split by the slimmest of margins to then turn around and claim "most Americans support Trump". And keep in mind Hillary was NOT a popular candidate. Now great Satan that she clearly was if America as a whole is as eager for some Trump love how come he barely beat that **** candidate?

Dew is an alt account, I would pay him zero attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

But it worked, according to you.  Republicans held up Garland's nomination for an entire year.  Where does it stop?  The precedent has been set...the opposition party opposes everything the president proposes.  A minority of 40 senators gets an effective veto on everything the president does regarding legislation and SCOTUS picks.  Why shouldn't Democrats follow the precedent that's already been set?

I can agree with you but isn't it time for us dems to bite the bullet and not play the payback game? Let him be confirmed and move on with life. Trump finances will end up biting him in the arse sooner or later. Patience will prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, big_dog said:

I can agree with you but isn't it time for us dems to bite the bullet and not play the payback game? Let him be confirmed and move on with life. Trump finances will end up biting him in the arse sooner or later. Patience will prevail.

Then we get pence.... catch 22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...