What is your present favorability rating of Donald Trump's executive actions?
Absolutely Favor
7.2% (11)
7.2% (11)
Mostly Favor
8.6% (13)
8.6% (13)
Barely Favor
2% (3)
2% (3)
Neutral
3.3% (5)
3.3% (5)
Barely Disfavor
1.3% (2)
1.3% (2)
Mostly Disfavor
19.7% (30)
19.7% (30)
Absolutely Disfavor
57.9% (88)
57.9% (88)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Donald Trump Executive Actions General

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

nothing quite like watching a country destroy itself from the inside. one can only hope the rest of the world watches and learns a lesson.

Killing TPP was good, everything else has been shit.

1 I like and 2 I am ambivalent about.

I liked killing TPP.

I am indifferent to the pipeline and the EPA.

That is the highest track record for executive orders any president had for me this early in their term.

TheMajesticSpaceDuck:

inu-kun:

Satinavian:

@Inu-kun

Yes. But for many Americans this is seen as overreaching gouvernment trying to control the citizens and taking away their freedom. It is deemed to unpopular to solve the problem this way so the Democrats don't go this route.

I don't really get why, though. It is simply ridiculous to think that the government does not have a photo of a civilian in store already. A loud minority shouldn't screw everyone else in having IDs.

It's because "That's how they getcha man!" Should be printed on the currency in the US. Course only suckers use money. That's how they getcha! Buy gold!

Everybody knows the currency of the future is bottle caps! Gold is for suckers!

Epyc Wynn:

Trump has arranged a media blackout on the EPA meaning they cannot communicate in any way social media or otherwise, and has cut off all new contracts and grants to the EPA, making the EPA obsolete and has cut many EPA jobs in the process immediately. They are tax-payer funded, meaning information the tax-payers paid for is not being allowed communication. This is what you would reasonably refer to as totalitarian suppression of knowledge, and is an action of what a dictator would do with information. All press inquiries on the matter have been ordered to go through his department for approval.

Don't know how much it is on the totalitarian scale since it's the government silencing the government, if it was a civilian organization It'd ring more true.

--Getting the Dakota Pipeline back on track isn't surprising, and makes it pretty clear which industry is going to have their hands on the government's steering wheel for the next four years. =P The only surprising element, really, is how QUICKLY it happened, though considering the money Energy Transfer Partners have been losing due to the delay, they likely made it clear to Trump that they wanted the matter settled as fast as possible. He was at least forward-thinking enough to sell his shares in ETP back in December, otherwise he would have likely ended up in hot water during his first week in office. In any case, look forward to seeing what else Big Oil ends up wanting, because at this point it seems likely that what Big Oil wants, Big Oil is going to get.

--By the way, the EPA isn't the only agency that is being put on silent running; Agricultural Department staff is as well, and it mirrors an internal memo that was sent to the USDA. (Though the USDA has since insisted the email was released without permission and how it's totally going to change, guys.) Similarly the Department of Agriculture's own instructions to go dark are, at least according to the administration, only to apply to matters of policy, and that food safety and other information should be permitted to flow freely.

It kind of ties into Trump's campaign strategy, and the strategy he's demonstrated in his early days of office; control the narrative. Now that he actually has control over what, at the very least, some of these department can and cannot say, it's going to be easier for him to put his own 'spin,' release misleading or inaccurate figures while the information that could correct them remain on lockdown. If the agencies regain the right to update the public, it'll likely be only after steps are taken to ensure they're providing the facts and figures the White House directly dictates.

--Withdrawing from the TPP is likely going to depend on what ends up replacing it, and what Trump's aims are. I wouldn't say withdrawing from the TPP is necessarily a bad thing, though it does give China an opening to expand their own economic reach. As for the wall... ugh... the wall.

--With regards to the petition for Trump to release his tax returns, I don't believe that he is will actually be obligated to DO it, just address the petition. While it'd certainly be lovely if he did- if only because it would significantly reduce his ability to make policy choices that benefit his own personal wealth- that same reason is likely why he won't, at least not in full. Still, here's a gem of a quote from Wikileaks; "Trump's breach of promise over the release of his tax returns is even more gratuitous than Clinton concealing her Goldman Sachs transcripts." They're now calling for anyone with access to Trump's tax information to release it to them, for the obvious purpose of releasing it to the public. Judging from the Twitter responses, Trump's most enthusiastic supporters were... NOT pleased by the comparison.

--As said, Trump's strategy; control the narrative, loudly say what you want the truth to be over and over until enough of your followers are repeating it to turn it into 'Alternative Facts.'

--Hmmmm, in more positive news it would appear the Dutch may be setting up an international abortion fund to try and at least lessen the impact of the Global Gag Rule. In essence any international organization who may now be ineligible for U.S. funding may be able to turn to the Dutch instead. curious if Trump will in some way lash out, though, given one could interpret the move as opposing the actions of his administration.

--In addition, Trump has reportedly outlined some of his plans to make the U.S. a more appealing place for manufacturing during a meeting with corporate executives; this includes cutting the corporate tax rate by as much as half, and slashing '75% or more' of existing regulations. He also added the border tax thing, which is gonna be real awkward to enforce when it comes time to tax his daughter's shoes for being made outside of the U.S. (Previously China, now I believe Ethiopia.) Though actually IMPOSING this tax might be tricky, for a number of reasons, meaning we could see the carrot remain, but not the stick.

A bright side from the meeting was he actually reportedly stayed on topic, and didn't talk about the media or his inauguration crowd, so we're seeing some progress on that front.

Zontar:
While I don't agree with everything Trump does (I know, shocker) there are two things here that really tick me off. First is this:

Epyc Wynn:

Second thing that irks me is this:[quote]

Donald Trump has lied about there being a mass voter fraud of 3-5 million false votes, and this has been used as an excuse to promote voter ID laws in the U.S. even though nearly nobody in the entire U.S. actually fakes votes.

Funny as it may seem, white liberals are literally the only demographic in America that opposes voter I.D. laws. Which I'm not surprised by, but then again as a Canadian (or really, someone from any modern democracy that isn't the US) the concept of not having voter I.D. is a foreign one to me since the US is the only first world nation that doesn't use it.

Well, that's not entirely true now that Chairman Justin has made changes to our voting laws that won't last the next administration, but I guess even if it's only temporary one needs to make note of it.[quote]

The problem with Voter ID laws is barely anyone, I am talking in the less than 0.00000013% (26 cases out of 193,000,000), actually faked votes between 2002 and 2005 for federal candidates.

BUT, there are hundreds of thousands of people who don't have Voter IDs but want to vote who are turned away because of Voter ID laws. Most people who do not have Voter IDs happen to be black and naturally, that affects the votes the Democrats receive.

In other words, Voter ID laws tackle the equivalent of a problem the size of an atom, but in the process cause a problem the size of an elephant. Further, they are heavily thought to be a hidden form of racism OR a form of manipulating votes to favor Republicans more than Democrats. Republicans in office have outwardly stated they promote Voter ID laws because it gets more Republicans elected in other words disenfranchises Democratic voters.

You can rhetorically spin this stuff any direction you want to but to ignore numbers that damning would not be madness, but would be just that: ignorance.

Zontar:

Funny as it may seem, white liberals are literally the only demographic in America that opposes voter I.D. laws.

image

Zontar, I've told you this multiple times and I'll say it again. Something isn't true just because you say it is. Because I have a hard time swallowing that the hundreds of thousands of primarily black people that weren't allowed to vote in the election because of these laws just shrugged their shoulders and went home.

Zontar:

Second thing that irks me is this:

Donald Trump has lied about there being a mass voter fraud of 3-5 million false votes, and this has been used as an excuse to promote voter ID laws in the U.S. even though nearly nobody in the entire U.S. actually fakes votes.

Funny as it may seem, white liberals are literally the only demographic in America that opposes voter I.D. laws. Which I'm not surprised by, but then again as a Canadian (or really, someone from any modern democracy that isn't the US) the concept of not having voter I.D. is a foreign one to me since the US is the only first world nation that doesn't use it.

Well, that's not entirely true now that Chairman Justin has made changes to our voting laws that won't last the next administration, but I guess even if it's only temporary one needs to make note of it.

And of course there is the worst executive action he has performed so far. Becoming president.

Well it could be worst. Better a man doing more to uphold his promises in his first week in office then his predecessor managed in 8 years, and better this then the war we'd be marching towards otherwise.

This timeline is certainly better then the nuclear hellscape the ones unfortunate enough to have elected Clinton are.

The problem with voter ID laws is the inequality of it. Its not nationally treated the same. Its mainly places where there is higher minority voters that Voter ID laws are "mysteriously" stricter.

I know I walked in, no ID, said my name, and I was voting and gone in maybe 20 minutes max? Im also a white person in a white area.

Now maybe if everyone got a free national ID and Voter ID laws were nationally consistent, who is for and against them would flip.

But as it stands, the Voter ID stuff is just modern racism meant to undermine minority America.

And Obama didnt have control of the whole government like Trump does. Since taking responsibility is irrelevant anymore, any failings of the Obama administration is on Republicans like John Boehner, cause fuck compromise, right?

Epyc Wynn:
Snip

I have a serious question: given the requirements of a modern state, how does one go about the basics without some form of identification?

erttheking:

image

http://www.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx

Saelune:
I know I walked in, no ID, said my name, and I was voting and gone in maybe 20 minutes max? Im also a white person in a white area.

If it's that easy, how do you prevent someone like me from just walking in 10 minutes before you and claim to be you?

And Obama didnt have control of the whole government like Trump does.

2008 democrat control of the house: 58% of Congress, 58% of the Senate

2016 republican control of the house: 51% of Congress, 52% of the Senate.

Zontar:
Snip

Did...did you read your own source? You said that only white liberals care, but your source says that both " nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites" with the minor difference being that blacks support Voter ID laws LESS, and on the issue of eligible voters not being able to vote "nonwhites are more likely than whites to say it is a problem." So your statement that only white democrats care about voter ID laws aren't exactly correct, particularly with the behind the scenes problem of voter suppression. For fuck's sake, your source flat out says that the laws mainly affect black voters who vote democrat.

erttheking:

Did...did you read your own source? You said that only white liberals care, but your source says that both " nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites" with the minor difference being that blacks support Voter ID laws LESS, and on the issue of eligible voters not being able to vote "nonwhites are more likely than whites to say it is a problem."

And yet it doesn't contradict the fact that whites and non-whites are majority in support of voter ID laws.

For fuck's sake, your source flat out says that the laws mainly affect black voters who vote democrat.

And yet funny enough to get the outcome it claims would require every black voter who votes republican, all who vote independent and most who vote democrat to support voter ID.

Who could have guessed that?

Zontar:

Epyc Wynn:
Snip

I have a serious question: given the requirements of a modern state, how does one go about the basics without some form of identification?

erttheking:

image

http://www.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx

Saelune:
I know I walked in, no ID, said my name, and I was voting and gone in maybe 20 minutes max? Im also a white person in a white area.

If it's that easy, how do you prevent someone like me from just walking in 10 minutes before you and claim to be you?

And Obama didnt have control of the whole government like Trump does.

2008 democrat control of the house: 58% of Congress, 58% of the Senate

2016 republican control of the house: 51% of Congress, 52% of the Senate.

Im not arguing if it is a good idea or not, Im arguing that it is not fairly and evenly enforced.

Currently it is used to deter racial minority voters. Eliminate that part of it and make Voter ID laws unbiased security measures and I will probably be fine with it.

And lets see...well, seems Obama used that time of dominance to get The Affordable Care Act out, and that was a great thing, so points Democrats. And oh, Trump is shitting all over that. I call that a retroactive fault on Republicans personally. So atleast you guys are making up for Obama's time of awesomeness.

Saelune:

And lets see...well, seems Obama used that time of dominance to get The Affordable Care Act out, and that was a great thing, so points Democrats. And oh, Trump is shitting all over that. I call that a retroactive fault on Republicans personally. So atleast you guys are making up for Obama's time of awesomeness.

So far the only thing I've seen regarding the ACA is the removal of a fine for not having insurance, which in my mind is a good thing given how it's pretty much just a tax on those too poor to afford insurance.

Zontar:

Saelune:

And lets see...well, seems Obama used that time of dominance to get The Affordable Care Act out, and that was a great thing, so points Democrats. And oh, Trump is shitting all over that. I call that a retroactive fault on Republicans personally. So atleast you guys are making up for Obama's time of awesomeness.

So far the only thing I've seen regarding the ACA is the removal of a fine for not having insurance, which in my mind is a good thing given how it's pretty much just a tax on those too poor to afford insurance.

ACA covers preexisting health conditions while insurance companies don't so that alone is good enough for me.

Zontar:

Saelune:

And lets see...well, seems Obama used that time of dominance to get The Affordable Care Act out, and that was a great thing, so points Democrats. And oh, Trump is shitting all over that. I call that a retroactive fault on Republicans personally. So atleast you guys are making up for Obama's time of awesomeness.

So far the only thing I've seen regarding the ACA is the removal of a fine for not having insurance, which in my mind is a good thing given how it's pretty much just a tax on those too poor to afford insurance.

Saved my family 10k when I suddenly had to go to the hospital.

And the real death tax will be paid by those who dont have insurance cause of Trump. Every single person who dies because of this is on the hands of everyone who supported Trump.

You can think whatever you want in your mind. The reality is not prone to merely follow your own whims for it though.

Zontar:

erttheking:

Did...did you read your own source? You said that only white liberals care, but your source says that both " nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites" with the minor difference being that blacks support Voter ID laws LESS, and on the issue of eligible voters not being able to vote "nonwhites are more likely than whites to say it is a problem."

And yet it doesn't contradict the fact that whites and non-whites are majority in support of voter ID laws.

For fuck's sake, your source flat out says that the laws mainly affect black voters who vote democrat.

And yet funny enough to get the outcome it claims would require every black voter who votes republican, all who vote independent and most who vote democrat to support voter ID.

Who could have guessed that?

image

Which isn't what you said. You said white democrats were the only people who cared. You were wrong. Could you please, kindly, own up to the fact that you were wrong in that regard?

Except your source also points out that nonwhites are heavily concerned with eligible voters not being able to vote, more so than they are a non-eligible voter being able to vote. This is because of something they teach you in any class that has to deal with polls and statistics. Wording is important. Because evidently people support voter ID laws...in a contextual-less vacuum. However, if you bring up the possibility of eligible voters being denied the right to vote, it's a big concern for nonwhites. Because, shock of all shocks, people can support Voter ID laws in theory and still know that they wouldn't ideally work in execution in the United States.

So don't you tell me that the idea of voter suppression is something people aren't concerned about, don't even imply it. Because it's flat out wrong.

Zontar:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx

That link doesn't support your claim.

You said that "white liberals are literally the only demographic that in America that oppose voter ID laws." That's not what those poll results say.

Rather, they indicate that support for voter registration laws fall mostly along party lines, with 95% of Republicans supporting voter ID laws (versus 63% of Democrats) and 80% of Democrats supporting automatic voter registration (versus 51% of Republicans).

Zontar:
2008 democrat control of the house: 58% of Congress, 58% of the Senate

2016 republican control of the house: 51% of Congress, 52% of the Senate.

You're conflating Congress and the House of Representatives. Congress is the entire institution. The Senate and the House of Representatives are separate chambers.

Republican seats in the House of Representatives are at 240 out of 435, or roughly 55%.

The distinction is important because the House of Representatives is arguably the more important chamber, as it has the sole power to legislate on appropriation, i.e. "cash money."

Saelune:

You can think whatever you want in your mind. The reality is not prone to merely follow your own whims for it though.

Unless someone shows me that he has backed off from his promise to make sure those who got health insurance as a result of the ACA will get to keep it, it's a moot point.

bastardofmelbourne:
That link doesn't support your claim.

You're right, I did make the assumption that white liberals are the only demographic where most don't support voter ID. For all we know they don't in fact oppose it by majority.

But the fact remains that minorities support voter ID laws.

You're conflating Congress and the House of Representatives. Congress is the entire institution. The Senate and the House of Representatives are separate chambers.

You're right, I made a mistake in how I worded it and I was slightly off with the numbers, but the point remains unchanged that in both chambers the democrats had more control in 2008 then the GOP does now.

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:
That link doesn't support your claim.

You're right, I did make the assumption that white liberals are the only demographic where most don't support voter ID. For all we know they don't in fact oppose it by majority.

But the fact remains that minorities support voter ID laws.

If you mean a minority of minorities support voter ID laws you would be correct.

Epyc Wynn:

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:
That link doesn't support your claim.

You're right, I did make the assumption that white liberals are the only demographic where most don't support voter ID. For all we know they don't in fact oppose it by majority.

But the fact remains that minorities support voter ID laws.

If you mean a minority of minorities support voter ID laws you would be correct.

I've not seen any poll showing that, only broken links to a 2012 poll showing that, at least for black voters (the only one people tend to bring up, because apparently it's not an issue for latino voters or something) show 60% support for voter ID.

Which, given how voter ID does not suppress minority votes isn't a surprise.

Zontar:

Saelune:

You can think whatever you want in your mind. The reality is not prone to merely follow your own whims for it though.

Unless someone shows me that he has backed off from his promise to make sure those who got health insurance as a result of the ACA will get to keep it, it's a moot point.

bastardofmelbourne:
That link doesn't support your claim.

You're right, I did make the assumption that white liberals are the only demographic where most don't support voter ID. For all we know they don't in fact oppose it by majority.

But the fact remains that minorities support voter ID laws.

You're conflating Congress and the House of Representatives. Congress is the entire institution. The Senate and the House of Representatives are separate chambers.

You're right, I made a mistake in how I worded it and I was slightly off with the numbers, but the point remains unchanged that in both chambers the democrats had more control in 2008 then the GOP does now.

So now what Trump promises mean something? Wasnt everyone saying that "hes just gonna break them, stop fussing"? So I guess all that other shit he has promised I should keep worrying about? Well, way to make health insurrance a minor issue then, cause Im even more worried about that shit.

And Obama started doing great.

Trump already is the worst president ever, and its been what? A week? He has been getting alot done...to prove all his opponents right.

Moral of the story: Democrats are better at running the country, go figure.

Saelune:
So now what Trump promises mean something? Wasnt everyone saying that "hes just gonna break them, stop fussing"?

That was form liberals and the never Trump camp, thinking he'd be like Obama, Clinton or any of the alternative GOP candidates who could have won where the promises where empty.

And Obama started doing great.

Like what? The only thing of note he did in his first few years was the ACA, a bailout and managing to paint his complete refusal to negotiate with the GOP when he needed them to support him at least in part as it being a failing on their part that he didn't want to even entertain the idea of acting like the then state of the congress was what it was.

Hell, after 8 years despite the fact it wouldn't take much work compared to the ACA he didn't even close Gitmo

Trump already is the worst president ever, and its been what? A week? He has been getting alot done...to prove all his opponents right.

This is either extreme hyperbole or just factually incorrect.

Moral of the story: Democrats are better at running the country, go figure.

Obama did an objectively, measurably worst job then Bush or Reagan. Doesn't matter if it's home ownership (which has gone down every single year he's been in office), the real employment rate (taking work place participation into account), median income, income increases when adjusted for inflation, economic growth by year (even taking the recession into account the recovery you usually see after even the depression didn't materialise) and so on.

Hell the only thing you could argue democrats do better then republicans that republicans can't argue against with facts is that democrats have now set the record for deportation of illegal immigrants thanks to Obama, but even that likely won't last.

Zontar:

Saelune:
So now what Trump promises mean something? Wasnt everyone saying that "hes just gonna break them, stop fussing"?

That was form liberals and the never Trump camp, thinking he'd be like Obama, Clinton or any of the alternative GOP candidates who could have won where the promises where empty.

And Obama started doing great.

Like what? The only thing of note he did in his first few years was the ACA, a bailout and managing to paint his complete refusal to negotiate with the GOP when he needed them to support him at least in part as it being a failing on their part that he didn't want to even entertain the idea of acting like the then state of the congress was what it was.

Hell, after 8 years despite the fact it wouldn't take much work compared to the ACA he didn't even close Gitmo

Trump already is the worst president ever, and its been what? A week? He has been getting alot done...to prove all his opponents right.

This is either extreme hyperbole or just factually incorrect.

Moral of the story: Democrats are better at running the country, go figure.

Obama did an objectively, measurably worst job then Bush or Reagan. Doesn't matter if it's home ownership (which has gone down every single year he's been in office), the real employment rate (taking work place participation into account), median income, income increases when adjusted for inflation, economic growth by year (even taking the recession into account the recovery you usually see after even the depression didn't materialise) and so on.

Hell the only thing you could argue democrats do better then republicans that republicans can't argue against with facts is that democrats have now set the record for deportation of illegal immigrants thanks to Obama, but even that likely won't last.

Actually it was from all those "moderates" who claim to "not support Trump" yet seem the most pissed when I criticize him.

Obama did not fill me with dread every time I saw a news article. He also did this thing called respecting the rest of the world. Most of Obama's critics focused on him being a nice guy. There wasnt any relevant criticism for quite awhile really.

ACA was a great step forward that could have been greater if not for Republicans. And he continued to be nice to the world, and helped end the feud with Cuba without being its puppet by the way.

And I look forward to Trump not closing gitmo either.

Reagan might only be worse cause he set up our political system to let Trump in.

Worst Presidents: Trump, Reagan, Bush Jr.

Obama is one of the top presidents ever. No Washington, Lincoln, or Teddy, but top 10 for sure.

Also he was the first and only Pro-Gay President. Thats a pretty big deal.

Zontar:
But the fact remains that minorities support voter ID laws.

According to that poll, a majority of everybody supports voter ID laws, probably because they sound harmless in principle; it's only in practice that the flaws become apparent. It's still not what you claimed originally;

Zontar:
Funny as it may seem, white liberals are literally the only demographic in America that opposes voter I.D. laws.

If what you wanted to say was "voter ID laws enjoy broad support across all demographics," why didn't you say that?

Zontar:
Obama did an objectively, measurably worst job then Bush or Reagan.

Come on, man. You know that isn't true.

The GFC struck in 2008 just as Obama was taking office. If he was doing a worse job than his predecessor, why didn't the GFC get worse? If Bush was doing a better job than Obama, why'd he let the GFC happen?

Saelune:

I just love watching that guy talk. It's weird to say it, but it's rare these days to get a politician who's actually good at off-the-cuff public speaking.

Saelune:
Actually it was from all those "moderates" who claim to "not support Trump" yet seem the most pissed when I criticize him.

Funny, I haven't seen a single one. Though I suppose being surrounded by mostly left leaning people who's support or opposition to him stems from whether they are for or against the failed experiment of globalism has something to do with it.

Obama did not fill me with dread every time I saw a news article. He also did this thing called respecting the rest of the world. Most of Obama's critics focused on him being a nice guy. There wasnt any relevant criticism for quite awhile really.

Well when the rest of the world was sucking up to him (he won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing literally nothing at all) and being a globalist that would make sense form him to pretend to be a nice guy. Though given how the media loves him because he was an establishment politician who was great for headlines, the dread you feel now that wasn't there doesn't stem from any difference in how things are being done on the government side of the equation.

And while I don't remember how early people where criticising the fact Obama can't articulate for shit if he isn't reading off a teleprompter, it certainly happened before his election (as even Clinton criticised him for it).

ACA was a great step forward that could have been greater if not for Republicans. And he continued to be nice to the world, and helped end the feud with Cuba without being its puppet by the way.

Funny how the left went from despising the ACA to loving it when a democrat decided to pass it instead of the republicans who original drafted it.

Also, Trump being a Russian puppet is a 9/11 inside job level conspiracy theory.

Reagan might only be worse cause he set up our political system to let Trump in.

Even if you don't like Reagan, his being better then Carter is an objective fact. There is literally no argument to be had otherwise that doesn't involve personal feelings that don't care for solid numbers.

Worst Presidents: Trump, Reagan, Bush Jr.

One would think the guys who's actions would set the stage for the Civil War, or who conquered Cuba and the Philippines, or who continually invaded and occupied Latin American banana republics, or who sicked law enforcement on workers, or who set the stage for the Great Depression, or who prolonged the Great Depression, or who caused Vietnam to be a quagmire, or who nearly broke the American economy due to its dependence on imported oil, that they would be the worst presidents.

But nope, it's a guy who hasn't been in office long enough to make anything resembling a judgement that isn't prejudicial, a man who was objectively better then the president directly before or after him by any metric, and a man who while having made some pretty shitty choices made many of the same ones the two presidents before him did.

You have strong opinions on the matter, but don't pretend they're solid facts.

Obama is one of the top presidents ever. No Washington, Lincoln, or Teddy, but top 10 for sure.

A stagnant economy, more people out of work as a proportion of the population now then at any other time in the past century, home ownership continues to decline, real income continues to decline, the price of necessities going up as a proportion of household income, faith in the government at an all time low.

The only thing noteworthy he accomplished outside of the ACA and his deportation record is that he managed to bounce back from being one of the least popular presidents of all time to a pretty decent level of popularity at the end. He's actually the opposite of Bush Jr. in that sense, as Bush was one of the least popular presidents when he took and left office, but was pretty popular in the time in between.

Also he was the first and only Pro-Gay President. Thats a pretty big deal.

Yes, he is the first president to flip flop on the issue of gay marriage, and to be personally in support of gay marriage.

Though he isn't the only one for the latter any more, as we now have the first president who supports gay marriage who never flip flopped on the issue (wanting the states to have it be in their sphere is not inherent opposition any more then wanting anything else to do be state responsibilities is).

if you look at the fine print of a few things.. the regugee thing for instance " People who commit honor killings, bigotry, violence against women, or who persecute against people on the basis of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, would not be admitted" is something that should of already been there.

destroying the tpp is a good thing

hes still a complete asshat however and im relieved i dont live in the us

bastardofmelbourne:
[

According to that poll, a majority of everybody supports voter ID laws, probably because they sound harmless in principle; it's only in practice that the flaws become apparent.

I know American exceptionalism is a big deal in the US, but how is the US the only country in the entire world where it's a problem? Are poor minorities in the US really that most less capable of doing the basic task critical for survival that is getting an government issued ID then similar minorities in other countries?

There seems to be a strong undertone of racism of low expectations at play with this implication.

If what you wanted to say was "voter ID laws enjoy broad support across all demographics," why didn't you say that?

Because then people would pretend that that's the case due to whites outnumbering minorities, when minorities also support voter ID laws.

Plus, given how most white liberals here seem to oppose it, is it really a stretch to have the perception they do oppose is overall while no other demographic does?

Come on, man. You know that isn't true.

I see your biased secondary sources, and raise you hard data primary sources:

image

image

image

The GFC struck in 2008 just as Obama was taking office. If he was doing a worse job than his predecessor, why didn't the GFC get worse? If Bush was doing a better job than Obama, why'd he let the GFC happen?

Reagan had to deal with the fallout of the oil crisis. Obama has not seen the recovery that all other recessions have had in their wake, and I doubt that the Great Depression was that much easier to deal with then the Clinton and house Republican created GFC.

Zontar:

Saelune:
Actually it was from all those "moderates" who claim to "not support Trump" yet seem the most pissed when I criticize him.

Funny, I haven't seen a single one. Though I suppose being surrounded by mostly left leaning people who's support or opposition to him stems from whether they are for or against the failed experiment of globalism has something to do with it.

Obama did not fill me with dread every time I saw a news article. He also did this thing called respecting the rest of the world. Most of Obama's critics focused on him being a nice guy. There wasnt any relevant criticism for quite awhile really.

Well when the rest of the world was sucking up to him (he won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing literally nothing at all) and being a globalist that would make sense form him to pretend to be a nice guy. Though given how the media loves him because he was an establishment politician who was great for headlines, the dread you feel now that wasn't there doesn't stem from any difference in how things are being done on the government side of the equation.

And while I don't remember how early people where criticising the fact Obama can't articulate for shit if he isn't reading off a teleprompter, it certainly happened before his election (as even Clinton criticised him for it).

ACA was a great step forward that could have been greater if not for Republicans. And he continued to be nice to the world, and helped end the feud with Cuba without being its puppet by the way.

Funny how the left went from despising the ACA to loving it when a democrat decided to pass it instead of the republicans who original drafted it.

Also, Trump being a Russian puppet is a 9/11 inside job level conspiracy theory.

Reagan might only be worse cause he set up our political system to let Trump in.

Even if you don't like Reagan, his being better then Carter is an objective fact. There is literally no argument to be had otherwise that doesn't involve personal feelings that don't care for solid numbers.

Worst Presidents: Trump, Reagan, Bush Jr.

One would think the guys who's actions would set the stage for the Civil War, or who conquered Cuba and the Philippines, or who continually invaded and occupied Latin American banana republics, or who sicked law enforcement on workers, or who set the stage for the Great Depression, or who prolonged the Great Depression, or who caused Vietnam to be a quagmire, or who nearly broke the American economy due to its dependence on imported oil, that they would be the worst presidents.

But nope, it's a guy who hasn't been in office long enough to make anything resembling a judgement that isn't prejudicial, a man who was objectively better then the president directly before or after him by any metric, and a man who while having made some pretty shitty choices made many of the same ones the two presidents before him did.

You have strong opinions on the matter, but don't pretend they're solid facts.

Obama is one of the top presidents ever. No Washington, Lincoln, or Teddy, but top 10 for sure.

A stagnant economy, more people out of work as a proportion of the population now then at any other time in the past century, home ownership continues to decline, real income continues to decline, the price of necessities going up as a proportion of household income, faith in the government at an all time low.

The only thing noteworthy he accomplished outside of the ACA and his deportation record is that he managed to bounce back from being one of the least popular presidents of all time to a pretty decent level of popularity at the end. He's actually the opposite of Bush Jr. in that sense, as Bush was one of the least popular presidents when he took and left office, but was pretty popular in the time in between.

Also he was the first and only Pro-Gay President. Thats a pretty big deal.

Yes, he is the first president to flip flop on the issue of gay marriage, and to be personally in support of gay marriage.

Though he isn't the only one for the latter any more, as we now have the first president who supports gay marriage who never flip flopped on the issue (wanting the states to have it be in their sphere is not inherent opposition any more then wanting anything else to do be state responsibilities is).

"failed experiment of globalism"? Do you even know how progress works? Every advancement makes the world smaller. Or should we all stick to tribal huts?

Well, for one you are just a whole bunch of wrong, but ignoring that, atleast Obama can actually read. Trump needs to learn control and to think...at all really. You praise some of his worst traits.

Republicans? Which Republicans? Cause ACA is Socialism Jr, and Right-Wingers hate that. Only it being Jr is why it had any chance of getting through really.

What has you up Carter's ass? Reagan is still fucking the country over...its called the Conservative party. They are all Reagan's fault.

Trump being a Russian puppet is just fact at this point. Plus Putin is some real James Bond villain shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

For one...did you suggest Lincoln is one of the worst Presidents?

Second, Presidents didnt have the power they have now back then. Admittedly that is alot of Teddy Roosevelt's fault, but he used it for good back then.

Congress used to be the big deciders of the country, for good or bad.

I know not to accept statisticless, sourceless statistics from you. Not gonna start now.

Improving as a person is not "flip-flopping". When he went pro-gay, he stayed that way, and while in office no less.

Trump is not pro-gay and everytime you say he is, you prove how unaware you are. Pence always automatically nullifies any half-assed "pro-gay" comment he pittered out before when it didnt matter for him. He wanted our money then. When it came to votes though, he wasnt really after ours.

bastardofmelbourne:

I just love watching that guy talk. It's weird to say it, but it's rare these days to get a politician who's actually good at off-the-cuff public speaking.

Obama cared. He wasnt in it for the money, or the mere power and prestige. Whether he succeeded or not, I have no doubt his goal as a politician was always to improve the world. And that alone makes him above and beyond so many.

Saelune:
"failed experiment of globalism"? Do you even know how progress works? Every advancement makes the world smaller. Or should we all stick to tribal huts?

Do you know what a strawman is? Because it's easy to burn that instead of something else.

Progress theory died over a century ago, how anyone can pretend it's still valid despite its repeated failures is beyond me.

Well, for one you are just a whole bunch of wrong, but ignoring that, atleast Obama can actually read. Trump needs to learn control and to think...at all really. You praise some of his worst traits.

So the fact Obama is incapable of making a clear speech without a prompter is a positive in your mind? Especially when comparing him to a man who can?

Republicans? Which Republicans?

The ones who literally drafted it. Don't tell me you're unaware of the fact the bill was originally made by republicans and had its origins in the Heritage Foundation. If anything the ACA speaks to the partisan nature of US politics where it doesn't matter if something is left or right leaning, support or opposition will stem from which party presents it.

What has you up Carter's ass? Reagan is still fucking the country over...its called the Conservative party. They are all Reagan's fault.

You mean appart from Carter being one of the worst presidents in US history, which is why he was a one term democrat sandwiched between two two term republicans?

Also, I'm pretty sure the GOP existed before Reagan.

Trump being a Russian puppet is just fact at this point.

No, it's a conspiracy theory, even those who believe Russia interfered with the US election mostly are smart enough to realize the idea that Russia played an impossible long game didn't happen.

For one...did you suggest Lincoln is one of the worst Presidents?

No. Those before him who set the stage for the civil war though, yes, those guys are.

Second, Presidents didnt have the power they have now back then. Admittedly that is alot of Teddy Roosevelt's fault, but he used it for good back then.

Eisenhower also used it for good, doesn't change the fact the office of the presidency for a century now has held too much power, and that Obama only continued to expand the power of that office.

Congress used to be the big deciders of the country, for good or bad.

It still is, though not as much, and even if it was it would be a bit of a moot point on this day.

Improving as a person is not "flip-flopping". When he went pro-gay, he stayed that way, and while in office no less.

And yet just 2 years before his first presidential election, 1 year before his run, after his last pre-presidency election, he was openly homophobic. That type of turnaround is pure political power play.

Trump is not pro-gay and everytime you say he is, you prove how unaware you are.

Wrong.

Pence always automatically nullifies any half-assed "pro-gay" comment he pittered out before when it didnt matter for him. He wanted our money then. When it came to votes though, he wasnt really after ours.

Wrong

image

You having issue with Pence I can understand (even though his hands are tied so even if he wanted to push for laws against the LGBT he can't) but if we're doing guilt by association then I'd like to know which third party candidate you supported given Clinton held more loyalty to slave owners who throw gays off buildings then she did the LGBT community.

Saelune:

bastardofmelbourne:

I just love watching that guy talk. It's weird to say it, but it's rare these days to get a politician who's actually good at off-the-cuff public speaking.

Obama cared. He wasnt in it for the money, or the mere power and prestige. Whether he succeeded or not, I have no doubt his goal as a politician was always to improve the world. And that alone makes him above and beyond so many.

image

Zontar:

Saelune:
"failed experiment of globalism"? Do you even know how progress works? Every advancement makes the world smaller. Or should we all stick to tribal huts?

Do you know what a strawman is? Because it's easy to burn that instead of something else.

Progress theory died over a century ago, how anyone can pretend it's still valid despite its repeated failures is beyond me.

Well, for one you are just a whole bunch of wrong, but ignoring that, atleast Obama can actually read. Trump needs to learn control and to think...at all really. You praise some of his worst traits.

So the fact Obama is incapable of making a clear speech without a prompter is a positive in your mind? Especially when comparing him to a man who can?

Republicans? Which Republicans?

The ones who literally drafted it. Don't tell me you're unaware of the fact the bill was originally made by republicans and had its origins in the Heritage Foundation. If anything the ACA speaks to the partisan nature of US politics where it doesn't matter if something is left or right leaning, support or opposition will stem from which party presents it.

What has you up Carter's ass? Reagan is still fucking the country over...its called the Conservative party. They are all Reagan's fault.

You mean appart from Carter being one of the worst presidents in US history, which is why he was a one term democrat sandwiched between two two term republicans?

Also, I'm pretty sure the GOP existed before Reagan.

Trump being a Russian puppet is just fact at this point.

No, it's a conspiracy theory, even those who believe Russia interfered with the US election mostly are smart enough to realize the idea that Russia played an impossible long game didn't happen.

For one...did you suggest Lincoln is one of the worst Presidents?

No. Those before him who set the stage for the civil war though, yes, those guys are.

Second, Presidents didnt have the power they have now back then. Admittedly that is alot of Teddy Roosevelt's fault, but he used it for good back then.

Eisenhower also used it for good, doesn't change the fact the office of the presidency for a century now has held too much power, and that Obama only continued to expand the power of that office.

Congress used to be the big deciders of the country, for good or bad.

It still is, though not as much, and even if it was it would be a bit of a moot point on this day.

Improving as a person is not "flip-flopping". When he went pro-gay, he stayed that way, and while in office no less.

And yet just 2 years before his first presidential election, 1 year before his run, after his last pre-presidency election, he was openly homophobic. That type of turnaround is pure political power play.

Trump is not pro-gay and everytime you say he is, you prove how unaware you are.

Wrong.

Pence always automatically nullifies any half-assed "pro-gay" comment he pittered out before when it didnt matter for him. He wanted our money then. When it came to votes though, he wasnt really after ours.

Wrong

image

You having issue with Pence I can understand (even though his hands are tied so even if he wanted to push for laws against the LGBT he can't) but if we're doing guilt by association then I'd like to know which third party candidate you supported given Clinton held more loyalty to slave owners who throw gays off buildings then she did the LGBT community.

Saelune:

bastardofmelbourne:

I just love watching that guy talk. It's weird to say it, but it's rare these days to get a politician who's actually good at off-the-cuff public speaking.

Obama cared. He wasnt in it for the money, or the mere power and prestige. Whether he succeeded or not, I have no doubt his goal as a politician was always to improve the world. And that alone makes him above and beyond so many.

Ever heard of a thing called the internet? We're on a website where people from the US, Canada, England, Sweden, Hong Kong, Israel, and all other places all argue about video games and politics.

A man who thinks of what he says and doesnt just spew garbage from his mouth is better than whatever Trump is. Also better than Bush, my god hearing him talk is so painful.

Citation needed. Maybe you're actually telling the truth, but I aint gonna do your work for you.

Again, what has you up Carter's ass? Citation once again needed, this time for clarity. Hell, Im asking for your opinion here, should not be that hard to say why you dont like him.

And Reagan evangelized the Republican party. Christians tended to think God should not be in politics too much until Reagan.

Trump is Putin's Puppet. Havent convinced me otherwise yet.

Making sure you didnt insinuate Lincoln on that. Still, Congress was the big dog back then, which is why I tend to just ignore alot of Presidents since many were basically figure heads.

I am certainly in favor of less Presidential Powers now if people like Trump can win it.

Again, flip flopping is not the same thing as changing your mind. Good thing he wasnt President when he wasnt pro-gay.

Oh, Trump holding a defiled rainbow flag? Yeah no. Actions speak louder than crayon on cloth, and his actions have firmly been anti-gay.

Trump supports and is supported by those same Saudis you claim bed Clinton. And Clinton isnt president, so who cares?

And stop defiling cool people like Picard/Stewart and Evans. They are good people and dont deserve your treatment.

Zontar:
image

I think Chris Evans would disagree with your use of his image in this context.

image

bastardofmelbourne:

I think Chris Evans would disagree with your use of his image in this context.

He may disagree with me on Trump, but let's not pretend that the gif isn't appropriate for the comment it was in response to.

bastardofmelbourne:

I think Chris Evans would disagree with your use of his image in this context.

image

I was already attracted as all hell to Evans. But his use of bully is a nice topping, aint it, considering?

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:

I think Chris Evans would disagree with your use of his image in this context.

He may disagree with me on Trump, but let's not pretend that the gif isn't appropriate for the comment it was in response to.

Not really. Cause I wasnt wrong.

Some awfully long posts from certain users that are allowing their discussion to derail the core purpose of the thread.

On topic, Donald Trump has officially ordered the building of the wall between the United States and Mexico and insists Mexico, a country completely united in opposition to the wall, will definitely fully pay for or reimburse the United States of America for it.

Because clearly, there has never been a poor reaction to a large wall separating a nation before.

For reference, here is the iconic album which was inspired by another wall that made a country look irreparably bad because of its existence. Normally I do not bring music videos up in a serious discussion, but this is one of those times where it is relevant.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here