Thread: trump is least popular president EVER

pops42 - 12/23/2017 at 08:52 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-christmas-least-popula r-president-ever-757898


blueskyJohnson - 12/26/2017 at 07:42 AM

Of the people I know that voted for Trump, everyone has been pleased so far with what he has done so I think I would take this poll with a grain of salt.


BoytonBrother - 12/26/2017 at 08:11 PM

Considering all of our scientifically-conducted polling failed miserably in the 2016 presidential election, I’d have to agree with blueskyjohnson.


MartinD28 - 12/26/2017 at 10:54 PM

quote:
Considering all of our scientifically-conducted polling failed miserably in the 2016 presidential election, I’d have to agree with blueskyjohnson.


I get your point, but based upon what this country has seen of his first year (campaign mode versus actually being a "leader"), you doubt the reasonable accuracy of Trump in the 30 + percentile and the lowest on record at this point in time for a sitting president?


blueskyJohnson - 12/27/2017 at 12:34 AM

quote:
Considering all of our scientifically-conducted polling failed miserably in the 2016 presidential election, I’d have to agree with blueskyjohnson.



Exactly what I was thinking. I don't have much faith in our media anymore. There have been too many erroneous reports for me to take many of them seriously. I used to think differently by the way but when you take a step back, the bigger picture of things don't look so good.


BoytonBrother - 12/27/2017 at 11:20 AM

quote:
I get your point, but based upon what this country has seen of his first year (campaign mode versus actually being a "leader"), you doubt the reasonable accuracy of Trump in the 30 + percentile and the lowest on record at this point in time for a sitting president?


Yes I do. I doubt the media even more than the polls. I don’t claim the media is “fake”, but as a former broadcast media professional, I can tell you they will do anything for ratings...and I mean anything. The Trump supporters I know, which is unfortunately a lot, love him more than ever.


2112 - 12/27/2017 at 05:08 PM

Trump loves to complain about how inaccurate polls are, until one shows him in a positive light, then he can't shut up about how great he's polling.

And his sheep go right along with it. Just look at Muleman's posts for examples.


gina - 12/30/2017 at 01:13 AM

It's not the polls that matter, but even with the Tax Reform Act, I read that not one Democrat voted for it, not one. How does the administration plan to get other things done, if no Democrats will vote for anything just because they do not support/like Trump?


StratDal - 12/30/2017 at 02:58 AM

quote:
Of the people I know that voted for Trump, everyone has been pleased so far with what he has done so I think I would take this poll with a grain of salt.


There are still people who believe FDR set up Pearl Harbor, the Apollo moon landings were fake, the Civil War is "The War Of Northern Aggression", the Bush administration was behind 9/11, or bring kids to KKK cross burnings. It's the human condition... god help us all...


2112 - 12/30/2017 at 11:19 AM

quote:
It's not the polls that matter, but even with the Tax Reform Act, I read that not one Democrat voted for it, not one. How does the administration plan to get other things done, if no Democrats will vote for anything just because they do not support/like Trump?




Not only would the Republicans not vote for any of Obamas policies, they wouldn't even bring it up for a vote, including a supreme court nominee. However, the Democrats didn't vote for the tax reform plan not because it was Trump, but rather it is a terrible policy. Why would you expect Democrats to give massive tax breaks to the wealthy and run up the deficit at the same time? Despite the Republicans holding both houses of Congress, this was the first piece of major legislation he has been able to push through. You can't blame the Democrats. Blame poor bills and poor policy decisions. You can also blame Trump’s poor leadership skills. For someone who likes to call himself a great negotiator, he hasn't negotiated anything.


nebish - 12/30/2017 at 04:27 PM

Yeah, alot of times it is just blind political vision. And other times it is principled disagreement.

It is like the whole "I hope the President succeeds thing". I've had talks with people who aren't political and they ask "why wouldn't everyone want the President to do well and succeed?". And I tell them, be it a D or an R in office, I tell them that success in the political vision of that President would go against things that many strongly believe in. So success for Obama means failure for the ideals of his opponents and vise versa. Most people aren't political and don't think of it like that. Now, saying I hope our country succeeds is different, but that can also lead to the left vs right argument of what approach is taken to create that success.

Trump thinks he will get bipartisan support on this infrastructure package. It will be 'easy' he says. Not so fast. The basic idea of an infrastructure investment plan should have strong Democrat support, while it should also have mixed Republican support, typically. With their President pushing it, more will likely support it that otherwise would. But I expect very few if any Democrats to support the plan the Republicans come up with...if it is anything like what was proposed in the Budget the President submitted. Just because two people agree something should be done, there could be wide disagreement on how it should be done. That is what is about to happen on infrastructure.


nebish - 12/30/2017 at 04:32 PM

That is why I always hope for divided government. In theory and historically, it forces both sides to come together and compromise. One party in the White House and one party on Capital Hill. Or one party in control of the Senate and one party in control in the House. In that arrangement we should have legislation where one side gets part of what they want, not all, and the other side gets some of what they want, not all.

But the times we live in now, that just leads to nothing. Nobody compromises anymore. Both sides want all or nothing. I hate one party control in Washington, either party.


2112 - 12/30/2017 at 05:33 PM

Reagan and Clinton were both excellent negotiators who were able to get things passed through congress despite the opposite party holding Congress. Unfortunately, these days it appears that people think if you give in on anything, you've lost. But today, the Republicans hold both houses and the presidency, and they still can't get anything done. That can only be blamed on poor bills and poor leadership. They even wiped out the filler buster rules in many cass and they have still gridlocked themselves. I'm just greatful that there are a few Republicans in Congress who refuse to vote for bad bills despite pressure from their own party. I felt the same way when Democrats held everything. It takes guts to stand out and vote for the good of the people and not tow the party line.


Chain - 12/30/2017 at 07:06 PM

quote:
Reagan and Clinton were both excellent negotiators who were able to get things passed through congress despite the opposite party holding Congress. Unfortunately, these days it appears that people think if you give in on anything, you've lost. But today, the Republicans hold both houses and the presidency, and they still can't get anything done. That can only be blamed on poor bills and poor leadership. They even wiped out the filler buster rules in many cass and they have still gridlocked themselves. I'm just greatful that there are a few Republicans in Congress who refuse to vote for bad bills despite pressure from their own party. I felt the same way when Democrats held everything. It takes guts to stand out and vote for the good of the people and not tow the party line.


I'm also grateful there's enough relatively sane Republicans in Congress to REJECT some of the incredibly unqualified nominees Trump has submitted for life time judgeship's, cabinet positions, etc. It's incredible just how little Trump considers qualifications over patronage, loyalty, etc. Some of his nominees are merely campaign hacks, friends of his, or people who have contributed something to him at one time or another.

And to think his supporters bought his crap during the campaign that he'd "hire only the best people." Yet another glaring example of a text book con job.



[Edited on 12/30/2017 by Chain]


Bhawk - 12/31/2017 at 05:23 PM

quote:
Yeah, alot of times it is just blind political vision. And other times it is principled disagreement.

It is like the whole "I hope the President succeeds thing". I've had talks with people who aren't political and they ask "why wouldn't everyone want the President to do well and succeed?". And I tell them, be it a D or an R in office, I tell them that success in the political vision of that President would go against things that many strongly believe in. So success for Obama means failure for the ideals of his opponents and vise versa. Most people aren't political and don't think of it like that. Now, saying I hope our country succeeds is different, but that can also lead to the left vs right argument of what approach is taken to create that success.

Trump thinks he will get bipartisan support on this infrastructure package. It will be 'easy' he says. Not so fast. The basic idea of an infrastructure investment plan should have strong Democrat support, while it should also have mixed Republican support, typically. With their President pushing it, more will likely support it that otherwise would. But I expect very few if any Democrats to support the plan the Republicans come up with...if it is anything like what was proposed in the Budget the President submitted. Just because two people agree something should be done, there could be wide disagreement on how it should be done. That is what is about to happen on infrastructure.


“Shovel ready” infrastructure jobs were widely mocked, derided and voted against several years ago. The ARRA was mocked as nothing but a failure (when in reality it had a mix of successes and failures). It’s different now, of course...


nebish - 12/31/2017 at 06:56 PM

The plan in Trump's budget if I remember right only had a fraction of the overall cost being federal govt funding - which was also mocked by opponents. I thought it was rather disingenuous to claim a $1 trillion infrastructure plan but only commit like 25% of the spending for it. I'm going to have to hear more about how and what they want to do.

Republicans probably saw the Democrat plan as a way of kickback to their voting base. Democrats are probably going to see the Republican plan as a way of profiting for corporations. Here we are.


MartinD28 - 12/31/2017 at 09:48 PM

quote:
The plan in Trump's budget if I remember right only had a fraction of the overall cost being federal govt funding - which was also mocked by opponents. I thought it was rather disingenuous to claim a $1 trillion infrastructure plan but only commit like 25% of the spending for it. I'm going to have to hear more about how and what they want to do.

Republicans probably saw the Democrat plan as a way of kickback to their voting base. Democrats are probably going to see the Republican plan as a way of profiting for corporations. Here we are.


I'd have to go back & listen to his campaign speeches, but I believe the "great one" campaigned on 1 trillion, and I don't think I recall cost sharing as part of that equation.

On another note, I don't know why he's using DACA as bargaining chip insisting upon $$$$$$ for his big beautiful wall along the Mexican Border. Who has not heard him say many many times along the campaign trail that Mexico would pay for the wall? So...is Trumpy now saying that we build the wall at our taxpayer expense, and then we will bill Mexico? Surely Mexico will have a change of heart and pay for what they have insisted all along that they won't.


2112 - 12/31/2017 at 10:05 PM

quote:
quote:
The plan in Trump's budget if I remember right only had a fraction of the overall cost being federal govt funding - which was also mocked by opponents. I thought it was rather disingenuous to claim a $1 trillion infrastructure plan but only commit like 25% of the spending for it. I'm going to have to hear more about how and what they want to do.

Republicans probably saw the Democrat plan as a way of kickback to their voting base. Democrats are probably going to see the Republican plan as a way of profiting for corporations. Here we are.


I'd have to go back & listen to his campaign speeches, but I believe the "great one" campaigned on 1 trillion, and I don't think I recall cost sharing as part of that equation.

On another note, I don't know why he's using DACA as bargaining chip insisting upon $$$$$$ for his big beautiful wall along the Mexican Border. Who has not heard him say many many times along the campaign trail that Mexico would pay for the wall? So...is Trumpy now saying that we build the wall at our taxpayer expense, and then we will bill Mexico? Surely Mexico will have a change of heart and pay for what they have insisted all along that they won't.


Mule said the Congress approved the funding for the wall under the Bush administration, before we even knew there was a plan for the wall, so I guess we are done here. All those months of saying Mexico would pay for the wall wasn't needed.


MartinD28 - 12/31/2017 at 10:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The plan in Trump's budget if I remember right only had a fraction of the overall cost being federal govt funding - which was also mocked by opponents. I thought it was rather disingenuous to claim a $1 trillion infrastructure plan but only commit like 25% of the spending for it. I'm going to have to hear more about how and what they want to do.

Republicans probably saw the Democrat plan as a way of kickback to their voting base. Democrats are probably going to see the Republican plan as a way of profiting for corporations. Here we are.


I'd have to go back & listen to his campaign speeches, but I believe the "great one" campaigned on 1 trillion, and I don't think I recall cost sharing as part of that equation.

On another note, I don't know why he's using DACA as bargaining chip insisting upon $$$$$$ for his big beautiful wall along the Mexican Border. Who has not heard him say many many times along the campaign trail that Mexico would pay for the wall? So...is Trumpy now saying that we build the wall at our taxpayer expense, and then we will bill Mexico? Surely Mexico will have a change of heart and pay for what they have insisted all along that they won't.


Mule said the Congress approved the funding for the wall under the Bush administration, before we even knew there was a plan for the wall, so I guess we are done here. All those months of saying Mexico would pay for the wall wasn't needed.


Then that sounds settled. All that Trump campaigning for no reason other than to rile the base. Sounds like he was trying to steal a fellow Republican's thunder. Thanks for the solid clarification.


nebish - 12/31/2017 at 11:42 PM

quote:
On another note, I don't know why he's using DACA as bargaining chip insisting upon $$$$$$ for his big beautiful wall along the Mexican Border. Who has not heard him say many many times along the campaign trail that Mexico would pay for the wall? So...is Trumpy now saying that we build the wall at our taxpayer expense, and then we will bill Mexico? Surely Mexico will have a change of heart and pay for what they have insisted all along that they won't.


quote:
Mule said the Congress approved the funding for the wall under the Bush administration, before we even knew there was a plan for the wall, so I guess we are done here. All those months of saying Mexico would pay for the wall wasn't needed.


quote:
Then that sounds settled. All that Trump campaigning for no reason other than to rile the base. Sounds like he was trying to steal a fellow Republican's thunder. Thanks for the solid clarification.


Don't know what Muleman did or did not say, however the Secure Fence Act does grant the authority to build a barrier/fence/wall. The problem with the Secure Fence Act is that it has not been built as spec'd in the original legislation and the money appropriated hasn't been utilized as the original bill intended.

Regarding Trump's wall, Mexico wasn't going to directly pay for it and everyone who responded with the "Mexico" during the call and answer part at those campaign rallies, one of which I attended, do not live in reality. And if Trump really had several ways of getting Mexico to pay for it, as he suggested, then why hasn't he put any of those ideas forward?

Here is an idea...the US imported $294.2 billion in goods and $23.5 billion in services from Mexico in 2016. A 1% tarriff on those goods and services would generate $3.177 billion dollars. Sounds like a source of way to pay for it to me.

So somebody is going to respond with "well then the US consumer is going to pay for it, you see, tariffs don't work, it just makes prices higher". Because those people will probably say that the cost of tariffs are passed on in the price people pay for the good or service...but that same person probably doesn't take that position when arguing for a minimum wage increase which businesses also pass on in the costs of their goods and services.

I'm happy to once again, as I have for years upon years here, to enter into another topic on tariffs and how the money from a tariff can be used to fund expenditures or influence certain corporate and consumer behaviors for our country's ultimate benefit. But I am confident there will be other opportunities for us to rehash that some other place.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=145799