Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in office

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

The Partisan Force is strong with you

Yes, the Democratic Party during the Jim Crow era were segregationists (and worse). And if you go back just a few years earlier, it was the Republicans who enthusiastically regulated businesses, and "trust busted" companies that were too large.



Incorrect.

What I'm saying is:

• The administration did not even try to demonstrate any urgency or imminent threat. If they had actual proof that, for example, there was an active terrorist plot in Sudan, and that blocking all immigration and asylum requests from Sudan on a temporary basis would prevent an attack, the courts would give that serious consideration.

• It is clear that the President cannot discriminate against immigrants on the basis of religion.

• There is more than enough here to show that the emergency stay on the EO is justified.

• If you genuinely believe that the emergency stay is an impeachable offense, then the most polite way to put it is: You are utterly and completely ignorant not just of how the federal judiciary operates, not just of the history of impeachment (for which you have no excuse), not just the norms of the judiciary, but the basic concept of the balance of powers.

Yes. You see I happen to know the history on such topics as slavery, Black Codes, KKK, Jim Crow... all Democrat Party promoted. One need not be partisan to see the truth there. You can run from the topic, you cannot hide the truth. And if you somehow believe you are not a left lean partisan, the rest of us know as your undisclosed lean is blindingly obvious.

Listen, we know who commits Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorists. We know they have not tried to hide the truth, in fact have openly pledged to infiltrate the numbers refugees and immigrants legally and illegally attempting to enter our nation.

CIA director grave warning: ISIS dangerous as ever - CNNPolitics.com I am aware that CNN is pretty much discredited, but figured you would at least believe what they said about terrorism and infiltrating refugees...

And again, point to where it says in the Constitution that there need to be proven anything for the President of the US to take the steps he was elected, as he most certainly did advertise his intentions and steps to protect our citizens, and feels necessary to do so.

It is clear that the President, and per the 1952 and 1965 Acts, and even his lesser, his appointed and confirmed Sect. of State, can make all decisions necessary and are not limited AT ALL for ANY REASON they feel impelled to do so.

As to your last, again comical, statement... you have not made your case in any intellectual manner supportable by our Constitution, the law, or even in any reasonable [ read: non suicidal ], rational or factual manner. The fact that you feel as one individual as do these ignorant but ideological judges, that they can put a straitjacket on the powers of the presidency is utterly nonsensical. Laughable.

It is quite apparent you have not a true clue, just blindly following only there to which your ideology informs and misleads you. The cliff is in your rear-view mirror, and I am here to advise you that disquieting feeling you feel is that of a blind lemming in free fall. What is truly hilarious, proven with all these gymnastic gyrations, is that you think that you actually know of what you try to speak authoritatively. :lamo

Speaking someone else's false and error laden lines is the labor of actors...it is why Hollywood does not inform us, the facts do.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Considering that you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the rulings? Not persuasive.



lol

Sorry dude, but when we are discussing the merits of the case, and you presume you are correct, and use that to dispute a point? That's begging the question.



No, what you've done is avoid answering the question.

Was it legal for Obama, via an executive order, to indefinitely defer deportations for selected unauthorized immigrants?

If you believe that Trump's EO is valid, then that view entails that Obama's EO was also valid.



And again... ad hominem attacks are not an argument; and you've shown many times now that you do not understand how and why the barrier for impeaching judges is exceptionally high.

You, simply put, have not a clue as to what I did and did not do, so you're talking out your butt...and way way over your pay grade.

Noooo, lol, sorry dude, when one fact merely follows another fact and you speak of both, that is just an example of telling the truth. Too funny the extent to which you folks will go to obfuscate the reality.

And again, NOooooooo, not necessarily true... it all depends on what the Constitution and what Congressional authority has been given. The two executive proclamations are not the same. Give the law which provides that the o bomb could do as he wanted. We know the current President has the right under existing law. I am currently unaware, having not previously studied it and I have not argued it either way, as to whether the o bomb had a skinny leg to stand on with regards his authority on deferring deportations. Be happy to look at it if you want to supply. But to automatically equate the two is not a rational of reasonable demand.

All EOs are not necessarily equal, sorry to have to inform.

When you are free of ad hom, then you can throw stones...capiche'?

Look, when one slams head on into another's unreasoned but continued adamant "arguments", after a time one has to identify the unreasoning as, you know, unreasoned. :shrug: It matters not how many, or for what reason, impeachments occurred in the past. What do you NOT get about that? What matters is if a judge, or other official, has gone far afoul of their own boundaries... in this case one of illegal trespass into the prerogative of the executive as by law and Constitution.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

1) see above re: ad homs

2) We care, because no one benefits by drumming out judges based on partisan attacks, as you so clearly advocate. Keep in mind that if those judges can be impeached for that ruling, then there are plenty of conservative judges who can be impeached for similar reasons, and the end result is that the federal judiciary will be eviscerated.

3) The Constitution lays out the reasons for impeachment. "Pissing off conservatives who don't understand the law" is not one of them.



Egads. That's not even REMOTELY true. Obama's approval rating started very high (as is the case for most, but not all, recent Presidents), fell in the first year, and then went up and down during his term.

[iimg]http://www.chrisweigant.com/cw/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1603bho.jpg[/img]



....or, he has no idea how to govern, and can't even convince the Republicans to do something they've wanted to do for 7 years.

The reality is that the only way he can get anything passed is to break the Hastert rule, and work with Democrats. The Freedom Caucus is emboldened by this, and is not paying a political price for sinking the AHCA, so that's pretty much it. That might happen, or... it might not.



:roll:

As noted earlier: Clinton won the election by 3 million votes. The polls were basically within the margin of error. She basically lost the election by around 80,000 votes. Polls didn't pick up on it, because so many people were deciding at the last minute. Brexit was also extremely close, and highly contested even after the vote.

And while the precision of the numbers may leave a false impression, it sure looks like Trump is not improving his popularity. This could certainly change. However, Trump boosters have been promising for nearly 2 years now that he will change, he will mature, he will get better, this time the reset is real, and... within 2 days, he goes back to attacking movie stars on Twitter.

Again, after repeated instruction and refusal to reason, one must call a spade a spade.

IF ANY JUDGE IS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW, LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE... BOOT THEM. There, are we clear on the non partisan aspect?

Okay, again, what law was either of the judges following. You cannot win the argument as you cannot in any way defend the judges not being purely ideological... or, again, give me the specific law that they were following as regards this travel ban. If you cannot do so, then you MUST know you are wrong and that judges can be impeached simply for trying to enforce their ideology in place of the law. Pissing off conservatives or not has nothing to do with it.

Not really too too hard to understand, is it?

Yeah, not true... by the MSM the o bomb was never ever really tested. His honeymoon lasted 8 years. That you do not see or know that is just a side effect of the kool aide.

What Ryan did was the establishment's bidding, put up a stinker that nobody wanted, it being the o bomb lite, and it was a good thing it went down. The Dem's still own that Bismarckian, sinking rapidly to the bottom, non healthy non affordable non care plan... the sad thing is those hurt by all this crap that the o bomb started. Trump now has a good idea of the lay of the land legislation wise, who are his friends, allies and his enemies... and can govern from here accordingly.

Everybody that is anybody knows it was Ryan's failure and not Trump's. Momentary set back. Ignore it, keep going forward.

The "Hastert Rule" is not anything carved in stone and has already been breached many a time. The Dems are unreasonable and have shown no propensity to become reasonable... there is certainly no necessity to have to work with Dems on this.

As to your polls and other voodoo incantations, you stick with those so often skewed attempts at influence... because they favor your side even when wrong. Be my guest, I do not care what you do in that regard. Just do not expect the rest of us to rely on them. And, between the two, I would suggest that the o bomb's constant divisive involvement in racially charged matters having nothing to do with his office, and then coming down in a racist manner continually on only one side[ wanna take a guess which side?], has been far more damaging to the country than Trump's having fun with stupid libs in Hollywood and elsewhere.

Fun to watch how the media and the liberal world runs barking after each of these tweet sticks he throws in whatever direction he so chooses... simply delightful.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

538 compared Trump's popularity to the first 300 days of Presidents going all the way back to Truman. He's had the worst start of them all.

We should note that many Presidents hit approval ratings this low -- and most bounced back. I'd also expect him to improve his popularity, if he can pass a bill that the public likes.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

what is it about these folks not being from OUR nation, their not being IN our country [ as you agreed the framework of governing covers only our jurisdictions], what is it that you do not get about the President has a duty UNDER our Constitution to protect AMERICAN CITIZENS?

I never said that the President doesn't have a duty and role in protecting citizens (and residents) of the US.

What I'm saying is that he violated the law and the Constitution when he wrote that EO.

I'd also say that the EO did not just fail to protect the US, it actually harmed it. However, it's not up to the court to determine the wisdom of the EO -- only whether it is legal.

Judges don't get to countermand, for purely harebrained and ideological reasons having no basis in our Constitution, the President of the United States on matters of national security.

I agree. However, that's not what happened here, especially since the Administration has not yet demonstrated that there was any genuine threat posed by immigrants from those nations, and failed to dispel the suspicion that he had an ulterior motive that violated the law.

If anything, it was the Trump administration that tried to foist harebrained, ideological and wholly invented arguments to the court. Its claims that it could not be reviewed were absurd and unprecedented, and showed a lack of understanding of the balance of powers; and it refused to defend its assertion that there was an emergency. Anyone who understands the law was not surprised that the EO got shut down.

What you fail to understand is that the progressive leaning of the nation has ended and the pendulum has swung back the other way....

Or, it's swinging in a completely different direction, and we're seeing a realignment of political positions and parties. It's too early to say; Trump could be a harbinger of a realignment, or a short populist fever; it is way too early to tell.

The Congress, our national legislature can do a lot with regards the judiciary, its make up and structure as provided by the Constitution...

Yes, they can. However, impeaching judges for ideological purposes -- which is surely what you're proposing, even if you are unable to see what is obvious about your own position -- would do incredible damage to the judiciary, and would license Democrats to do the same when they have a majority in the Senate.

That's why norms are so useful. Even though they are not hard written rules, they maintain the integrity, civility, and stability of the system.

So, show me anywhere that it is stated, with any true authority, what you are saying about the 1965 vs the 1952 Acts...

I already have. It's not my problem if you do not understand the law.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Yes. You see I happen to know the history on such topics as slavery, Black Codes, KKK, Jim Crow... all Democrat Party promoted.

Then you should fully understand that the parties realigned in the late 60s, in no small part in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Acts. Many Southern Democrats, who were strong segregationists, gradually switched over to the Republican Party.

I.e. if your intent is to say "Southern Democrats were segregationists in the 1950s, therefore Democrats today are bad!!!" then that is just... sad.

Listen, we know who commits Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorists.

Sure. And right-wing nuts, like Tim McVeigh.

And right-wing militias, like the Contras, used death squads and terrorist tactics to attack citizens and the Sandinista government. Oh, and they murdered priests and nuns, too.

And the Irish Republican Army, who waged a terrorist war against the British for decades.

And some hippies too, they were blowing up banks in the 1960s.

And Japanese religious cults, who released sarin gas in a subway.

And Hindu nationalists in Sri Lanka during the civil war, now that was ugly....

Wake up. Terrorism is not an ideology, it is not a religion. It's a tactic.

We know they have not tried to hide the truth, in fact have openly pledged to infiltrate the numbers refugees and immigrants legally and illegally attempting to enter our nation.

We also know that no refugees or immigrants from the nations on Trump's list have committed terrorist attacks. In fact, Iraq was dropped from the list in the 2nd round! Did the Trump administration suddenly vet every refugee and immigrant from Iraq in the space of a few weeks?

As to your last, again comical, statement... you have not made your case in any intellectual manner supportable by our Constitution, the law, or even in any reasonable....

OK, now you're just sounding like a broken record. Boring

 

[chromium]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

if he can pass a bill that the public likes.

lol did you see the debacle with health care? That party is incapable of doing anything that can even pass for good reform and Trump will just get more desperate to push it off the cliff. Next time it won't be Ryan but him driving the crazed hand out for the wealthy that 83% dislike. Then by 2019 he'll be a lame duck with no chance of passing anything

 

[Visbek]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

IF ANY JUDGE IS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW, LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE... BOOT THEM. There, are we clear on the non partisan aspect?

Since the judges in this case were following the law -- as should be obvious by anyone who bothered to read the decisions -- and you are still insisting they be impeached? It's pretty clear that you are applying partisan standards.

P.S. constantly referring to a former President as "o bomb?" Not establishing your credibility as someone who is "non-partisan."

Okay, again, what law was either of the judges following.

Already explained, see above, not my problem if you don't understand it

What Ryan did was the establishment's bidding....

...and it had Trump's full support. And he still couldn't get it passed.

Face it. The Freedom Caucus defied him, as did many moderates, with no sign of any negative consequences in the eyes of their constituents. Heck, many were pleased with the FC. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating suffered, dropping him to historic lows for someone at this point in his Presidency.

Oh, and as to blaming Obama for an increasingly popular health care reform? And blaming Democrats for Ryan writing a disastrous law that no one wanted, everyone hated, and that Republicans couldn't fix? Good plan. Keep it up.

The "Hastert Rule" is not anything carved in stone and has already been breached many a time. The Dems are unreasonable and have shown no propensity to become reasonable... there is certainly no necessity to have to work with Dems on this.

You've got to be kidding.

Any ACA repeal that satisfies the FC will lose the votes of the moderates; and vice versa. The Republican Party is far too fractured to agree on a single repeal bill. Meanwhile, the ACA keeps getting more popular. The only option is to work with the Democrats, and they are not going to vote for a repeal.

As to your polls and other voodoo incantations, you stick with those so often skewed attempts at influence... because they favor your side even when wrong.

....no, that's not even remotely true.

Go look at Presidential approval polls, look at Obama's history. He started with very high approval ratings, which fell to the 40s. They stayed fairly low, then went up during the 2012 election, then back down, then up at the end of his Presidency. That didn't do much to help Obama during most of his term.

Similarly, the ACA's approval ratings were fairly low -- until right after the election. Its approval rating has never beaten its disapproval -- until after the election. I hardly see how, prior to pretty much now, that was good for the ACA.

Last but not least: If you don't believe the polls, then what are you doing in this thread? Did you somehow miss the topic?

 

[DA60]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

For the record, according to Gallup, Trump's approval rating took another dip on Tuesday.

It is now at 35%.

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval | Gallup

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

I never said that the President doesn't have a duty and role in protecting citizens (and residents) of the US.

What I'm saying is that he violated the law and the Constitution when he wrote that EO.

I'd also say that the EO did not just fail to protect the US, it actually harmed it. However, it's not up to the court to determine the wisdom of the EO -- only whether it is legal.



I agree. However, that's not what happened here, especially since the Administration has not yet demonstrated that there was any genuine threat posed by immigrants from those nations, and failed to dispel the suspicion that he had an ulterior motive that violated the law.

If anything, it was the Trump administration that tried to foist harebrained, ideological and wholly invented arguments to the court. Its claims that it could not be reviewed were absurd and unprecedented, and showed a lack of understanding of the balance of powers; and it refused to defend its assertion that there was an emergency. Anyone who understands the law was not surprised that the EO got shut down.



Or, it's swinging in a completely different direction, and we're seeing a realignment of political positions and parties. It's too early to say; Trump could be a harbinger of a realignment, or a short populist fever; it is way too early to tell.



Yes, they can. However, impeaching judges for ideological purposes -- which is surely what you're proposing, even if you are unable to see what is obvious about your own position -- would do incredible damage to the judiciary, and would license Democrats to do the same when they have a majority in the Senate.

That's why norms are so useful. Even though they are not hard written rules, they maintain the integrity, civility, and stability of the system.



I already have. It's not my problem if you do not understand the law.

Okay, so you agree with me that the President has the right, power and authority. Check.

You never proved that the President violated either the law or the Constitution. You completely ignored my Check and Mate with the verbiage in your proffered 1965 law regarding discrimination when I showed that the item you quoted was, in the very next sentence, dominated by the language that this in no way limits the power of the Secretary of State over issuance, specifically, of visas... besides it says nothing about "entry".

Plus the added bonus that you are wrong on the 1952 Act being replaced by the 1965... only where specifically amended and/or only where the two are specifically in tension... so the President, when acting to preserve national security CAN, damned well SHOULD, protect American citizens as you have already agreed [ see above].

Again, the President does not have to go to the courts to see whether or not he can protect US citizens. There is a threat, that the o bomb refused to acknowledge it or even pronounce its name was dangerous and stupid, begs the question of his actual loyalty to the US vs his loyalty to Islam and its radicals. I mean if you are reading the context of Trump's aims, what were the bases upon which lie Barry H the o bomb's underlying motives, eh?

Anybody who does not understand, in the wake of so many recent attacks by Islamic extremists and those so inspired by them, that there is an imminent, that ship has already sailed, threat is also probably not looking both ways when they cross the street either.

Again, your wishy washy analysis of what the President is the harbinger of has no substance nor merit. Wasted type.

What do you not get about the fact that if a judge is using pure ideological opinion and what, personal long distance psychoanalysis? to under-gird a decision that is supposed to be based upon law, that he/she should be summarily tossed. WE ABSOLUTELY NEED KICK OUT JUDGES RULING BASED ON THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND NOT THE LAW. If referees in a sport did this, nobody seeking justice would be against it if they were justly booted... just as they should be in the courts.

Jesus dude, how many times do I have to spell it out for you in so many different ways, I implore the Dems to sanction judges, toss them out, if any judge is not ruling based on the LAW?????

And dude, this is past becoming lame. I already showed you where, in your own proffered 1965 Act that the very next sentence obviates what you are trying to use as your "trump" card... the language on discrimination in no way limits the power of the SoS in the visa process and the prior 1952 Act gives the president express powers with regards to any alien or alien group.

If you cannot understand the language, which I know you can because you keep ignoring me on the point, ask for some assistance in interpreting the Acts. I mean that stands to reason, yano?

Mate.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Then you should fully understand that the parties realigned in the late 60s, in no small part in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Acts. Many Southern Democrats, who were strong segregationists, gradually switched over to the Republican Party.

I.e. if your intent is to say "Southern Democrats were segregationists in the 1950s, therefore Democrats today are bad!!!" then that is just... sad.



Sure. And right-wing nuts, like Tim McVeigh.

And right-wing militias, like the Contras, used death squads and terrorist tactics to attack citizens and the Sandinista government. Oh, and they murdered priests and nuns, too.

And the Irish Republican Army, who waged a terrorist war against the British for decades.

And some hippies too, they were blowing up banks in the 1960s.

And Japanese religious cults, who released sarin gas in a subway.

And Hindu nationalists in Sri Lanka during the civil war, now that was ugly....

Wake up. Terrorism is not an ideology, it is not a religion. It's a tactic.



We also know that no refugees or immigrants from the nations on Trump's list have committed terrorist attacks. In fact, Iraq was dropped from the list in the 2nd round! Did the Trump administration suddenly vet every refugee and immigrant from Iraq in the space of a few weeks?



OK, now you're just sounding like a broken record. Boring

Yes, that is the common, yet unstudied, viewpoint of those hoping it was so from the left. Its just not.

Tell you what, as an example, go to the article on the Southern Manifesto [ if you don't know what that is you are lost]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto and look at all the Democrat names, and one Republican, on that list. Then, you can click on each name and see if they ever changed parties before they died. Then see if they continued running for office as a Democrat and achieved that [ if all the old boy segregationists turned Republican, why would these guys keep getting voted as Democrats?]... or look at the most recognizable name on the Segregationists map at the time, George Wallace, standing in the school room door fame, and you will see that he was a Democrat, then went Independent [ taking almost all the South, especially the segregationists portions specifically and thus obviating the slur on Nixon regarding a Southern Strategy] and then right back to Democrat again running for and winning his seat as Governor of Alabama.

Democrats that switched to our party, the party of Lincoln the Emancipator, came for different reasons.

Wow, what a joke...all that to tell me that terrorism is a tactic. All Islamic terrorism IS a tactic, used by Islamic terrorists. Yano?

Again, why the President dropped Iraq from the list is privy to the President and his team, they are the responsible parties in this equation when it comes to national security. So you say he shouldn't have?

Yeah? I guess Truth is boring to a leftist. That has been confirmed to me toooooooo many times right here in this thread.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Since the judges in this case were following the law -- as should be obvious by anyone who bothered to read the decisions -- and you are still insisting they be impeached? It's pretty clear that you are applying partisan standards.

P.S. constantly referring to a former President as "o bomb?" Not establishing your credibility as someone who is "non-partisan."



Already explained, see above, not my problem if you don't understand it



...and it had Trump's full support. And he still couldn't get it passed.

Face it. The Freedom Caucus defied him, as did many moderates, with no sign of any negative consequences in the eyes of their constituents. Heck, many were pleased with the FC. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating suffered, dropping him to historic lows for someone at this point in his Presidency.

Oh, and as to blaming Obama for an increasingly popular health care reform? And blaming Democrats for Ryan writing a disastrous law that no one wanted, everyone hated, and that Republicans couldn't fix? Good plan. Keep it up.



You've got to be kidding.

Any ACA repeal that satisfies the FC will lose the votes of the moderates; and vice versa. The Republican Party is far too fractured to agree on a single repeal bill. Meanwhile, the ACA keeps getting more popular. The only option is to work with the Democrats, and they are not going to vote for a repeal.



....no, that's not even remotely true.

Go look at Presidential approval polls, look at Obama's history. He started with very high approval ratings, which fell to the 40s. They stayed fairly low, then went up during the 2012 election, then back down, then up at the end of his Presidency. That didn't do much to help Obama during most of his term.

Similarly, the ACA's approval ratings were fairly low -- until right after the election. Its approval rating has never beaten its disapproval -- until after the election. I hardly see how, prior to pretty much now, that was good for the ACA.

Last but not least: If you don't believe the polls, then what are you doing in this thread? Did you somehow miss the topic?

Ha!!! What a laugh, thanks, gave me a smile this morning to start things off great.

There is a reason to BE partisan, you folks on that side are trying to bring down my country from both the inside and out, culturally, morally and physically. The former president was a bomb that exploded on the American electorate doing much damage, why not constantly portray that truth?

Oh yeah, the truth is boring to you folks on the left, I almost forgot.

Except they were not based on any law or the Constitution, and you never explained how they were, well, except for the parts where I check mated you... those no longer count... its like I captured them, your Queen, they are off the board now.

It was a stinker bill and Trump pushed Ryan to put it out, get it over with and see if Ryan could produce, he couldn't so they pulled it. It was the o bomb lite, we certainly do not need that. And, in its death throes, the spiraling downwards of the non affordable plan and the Dem party will need the Republican cavalry to come to the rescue again, as we always do.

Again, your poor analysis is so damned faulty and your skewed views based on polling got you Hillary for President... oh, my bad, no, we have President Trump.

Ha ha ha, right. You keep following those polls blind to where they get YOU. And I don't quite know how to tell you this, but read my post to begin with and... it being a free country again, where one can express one's opinion fairly freely without worrying about what the Dems, who are no longer in charge, have to do and say about it, I can comment on anything I like...

And so, guess what, bet you Trump gets elected again before Hillary does. Ha ha ha ha ha ha...

 

[LowDown]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

america has spoken

Good thing there's another election in about 4 years.

 

[Cigar]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Presidents who have hit 35% have had one of these three things as cause:


1. unpopular war
2. recession
3. watergate

So let's examine Trump.

He has inherited a strong economy from Obama and hasn't managed to **** it up just yet, but he is well on his way.

He hasn't started a war yet, but he is obviously itching to.

Russiagate is growing, but it hasnt reached Spring of 1974 levels yet.

So Trump is at 35% BEFORE any of those three things have happened.... and he is on his way to all three of them happening soon.

I doubt that Trump is still President by the fall of 2018.... but if he is, all the gerrymandering in the world is not going to save the GOP from an historic thumping.

and then once the Democrats have the power of subpoena in the House following the 2018 midterms... if Trump is still President, the inpeachment hearings will begin on day 1. If Pence is, he will be a complete lame duck with severely clipped wings and probably wouldn't win a GOP primary for 2020.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Mate.

*yawn*

All you're doing at this point is begging the question, repeating incorrect claims, ignoring actual rulings, issuing threats, and utterly failing to see how you are trapped in your own ideological view.

You've offered nothing new in that post. Moving on.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Yes, that is the common, yet unstudied, viewpoint of those hoping it was so from the left. Its just not.

Yes, because the policies advocated by the Democratic and Republican parties circa 1890 are set in stone, and are exactly the same today :lamo

Crack a history book. Parties change over time. They change ideologies, they change geographically, they change in terms of membership. Ronald Reagan would have trouble running on a Republican ticket today, let alone Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln. The issues themselves change, too. Circa 1960, many white southerners would not think twice about speaking in favor of racial segregation; today, even known white supremacists are reluctant to publicly advocate a return to segregation.

I mean, really. Are we supposed to believe that every Democrat is a "secret segregationist," because Southern Democrats in the 1960s advocated for segregation? You do realize that many Democrats today weren't even born before the Civil Rights Acts?

Wow, what a joke...all that to tell me that terrorism is a tactic. All Islamic terrorism IS a tactic, used by Islamic terrorists. Yano?

:roll:

OK, let's try this again.

• Not all terrorists are Muslims.
• Not all Muslims are terrorists.
• Immigrants from the nations on Trump's list have not participated in acts of terrorism on US soil.
• There is apparently no reason why Iraq was removed from the list.
• Your own argument here implies that the ban is, in fact, based on religion -- which is precisely why it is illegal.

If you are trying to say "the President can ban all Muslims because he thinks they're a threat," then you are utterly wrong. Which is why the Administration, as incompetent as it is, didn't try to make that argument. In fact, they argue it isn't targeting Muslims at all.

So, which is it? Is the EO justified because it doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion? Or is it justified because it's acceptable for the EO to discriminate on the basis of religion?

Equally important is that barring Muslims from the US won't make the US more safe. What it does is give extremists recruiting tools, because they can point to the US as being anti-Muslim, as mistreating Muslims who try to enter the US, and so forth.

Again, why the President dropped Iraq from the list is privy to the President and his team, they are the responsible parties in this equation when it comes to national security. So you say he shouldn't have?

The Administration has to prove to the courts that the reason for the ban is not discrimination, but out of a legitimate and immediate security need. The courts, I might add, tend to be very favorable to the Executive branch when security is involved.

However, the Administration has repeatedly refused to provide any information to suggest that the purpose of the ban, and criteria of nations selected for the ban, is based on national security. The more arbitrary the list, the weaker the Administration's claim.

I'm so glad you understand the criteria the courts are required, by law, to apply to the case.

By the way, the initial order was issued on January 27th. It barred entry for the 7 nations for 90 days. Guess what? 90 days are up. It barred refugees for 120 days. Guess what? 120 days are up. I might add, the administration lawyers and officials duking this out in court aren't the ones tasked with changing the policies or updating screening measures. What new screening measures were added since January? Why hasn't the administration changed whatever task was required? Didn't they finish whatever they were planning to do?

No, it's obvious this is not about national security. The failure to change screening procedures, the arbitrary choice of nations, the President's statements, the legal filings all show that the claimed intent is a smokescreen. The real purpose was to discourage Muslims from entering the US, which is not only illegal, but incredibly damaging to our security.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

There is a reason to BE partisan, you folks on that side are trying to bring down my country from both the inside and out, culturally, morally and physically. The former president was a bomb that exploded on the American electorate doing much damage, why not constantly portray that truth?

Oh, that's easy.

• It's not true.
• It obviously distorts your perspective on things.

Thanks for relieving me of any need to treat your positions as anything other than rank partisanship.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

*yawn*

All you're doing at this point is begging the question, repeating incorrect claims, ignoring actual rulings, issuing threats, and utterly failing to see how you are trapped in your own ideological view.

You've offered nothing new in that post. Moving on.

"*yawn*"?

Bored with the truth again, eh? Figures. You didn't run off and hide this time, don't know if that was all that helpful to your cause, however.

For the actual recap, you proved you have little idea how the system of checks and balances works between the three branches of the Federal government, you never let up your death grip on allowing judges to just go off the reservation encroaching into areas they have no business nor knowledge, you were proven wrong over and over and over again regarding the 19 5 2 & 1965 Immigration and Nationality Acts, specifically regarding what latitude the President and Secretary of State are allowed by. the Legislative branch, and I won't even go into the lesser ancillary points where you, when pushed either just expressed your boredom at having been questioned, and in the majority of the instances, just completely ignored the question not even bothering to put up a deflection.

Hat tip. Job well done helping me completely flesh out and prove my points.

Thanks! [emoji6] [emoji39]

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Oh, that's easy.

• It's not true.
• It obviously distorts your perspective on things.

Thanks for relieving me of any need to treat your positions as anything other than rank partisanship.

Good lord pal.

There is nothing necessarily inherent in partisanship that requires distortion... were the folks partisan against the KKK, Black Codes, Jim Crow, anti Nazi too distorted for your tastes?

Hell, are your own partisan views too distorted for you? Try coming back to at least a modicum of reality, yano?

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

Yes, because the policies advocated by the Democratic and Republican parties circa 1890 are set in stone, and are exactly the same today :lamo

Crack a history book. Parties change over time. They change ideologies, they change geographically, they change in terms of membership. Ronald Reagan would have trouble running on a Republican ticket today, let alone Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln. The issues themselves change, too. Circa 1960, many white southerners would not think twice about speaking in favor of racial segregation; today, even known white supremacists are reluctant to publicly advocate a return to segregation.

I mean, really. Are we supposed to believe that every Democrat is a "secret segregationist," because Southern Democrats in the 1960s advocated for segregation? You do realize that many Democrats today weren't even born before the Civil Rights Acts?

Wow.

Understanding how truly partisan you actually are, I bet you took my advice and actually went clicking back through all those DEMOCRAT and stayed DEMOCRAT segregationist Southern politicians politicians... and did you notice how many of them continued getting elected until they got too old to run any more? There simply is no supportable evidence of a mass exodus to the Republican Party of the racists from your side... they stayed in the party that never made the contention against more than luke warm at best... then tried to pin it on the Party of Lincoln...

So, to the under informed, with the help of bias in the media, the left's hard push into academia to not so subtlety rewrite the common nonsensical view and bolstered by bad/skewed history put out by Hollywood and bombarded in TV programming, your side has foisted upon the general American public a false sense of where responsibility lay for the crimes of the past... and yoy folks, on steroids, try to push that false narrative on into the future.

Only problem is that it was all a lie. Then... and now.

But in growing numbers we, the people, are onto the game, your side has completely lost credibility.

And good riddance.



Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

:roll:

OK, let's try this again.

• Not all terrorists are Muslims.
• Not all Muslims are terrorists.
• Immigrants from the nations on Trump's list have not participated in acts of terrorism on US soil.
• There is apparently no reason why Iraq was removed from the list.
• Your own argument here implies that the ban is, in fact, based on religion -- which is precisely why it is illegal.

If you are trying to say "the President can ban all Muslims because he thinks they're a threat," then you are utterly wrong. Which is why the Administration, as incompetent as it is, didn't try to make that argument. In fact, they argue it isn't targeting Muslims at all.

So, which is it? Is the EO justified because it doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion? Or is it justified because it's acceptable for the EO to discriminate on the basis of religion?

Equally important is that barring Muslims from the US won't make the US more safe. What it does is give extremists recruiting tools, because they can point to the US as being anti-Muslim, as mistreating Muslims who try to enter the US, and so forth.



.

First, since I have been around long enough to know where lefties immediately go if one makes an analogy, it is just an analogy... but not all dangerous dogs are pit bulls, not all pit bulls are dangerous, but anyone with any common sense is on heightened alert around them and most generally intelligent folk avoid them entirely.

I haven't had a personal friend or family member get torn to shreds by. a pit bull and so I must, by law invite them into my yard exposing family, friends, neighbors children to the dangers... why?

To satisfy some guilt you lefties have lingering within yourselves for what reason heaven only knows?

No, you folks need to work on your consciences with your therapists if they trouble you so much... not force threats onto yourself and your innocent neighbors who are just trying to live their own American dream as actual citizens here. Citizens whose expectations as they work hard everyday that, while they have their heads down. concentrating hard ob their own jobs, that the people they elected to protect them, their beloved families, friends and fellow Americans, will actually do those things they promised and keep us safe.

And certainly not bring into out midst those who have vowed openly to hurt Americans in whatever way they can figure out.

Jesus, you like polls, have you looked at the ones on how many Muslims in the US agree with Jihad against infidels, that advocate for Sharia law, etc...

The recruiting tool argument is old and worn thin, our very existence in the West is a recruiting tool



Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk

 

[Utility Man]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

BREAKING: Trump Considering Resigning From Office, ?Credible Source?

opcorn2:

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Trump records the lowest approval rating ever for a president after 60 days in of

BREAKING: Trump Considering Resigning From Office, ?Credible Source?

opcorn2:

You don't believe that do you? Besides. His resignation doesn't put a democrat in office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk