Trump rating: 90% R and 10% D approves

Let’s face it, The Donald is going to have to walk on water before the masses give him “some” credit. He is in the classic no win situation…

2 Likes

Nice spin @BAGB. Here is the first paragraph of that article:

A majority, 53%, disapprove of the way the President is handling his job, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, marking the highest disapproval for a new elected president since polls began tracking those results. Trump is the only President to hold a net-negative rating this early in his tenure.

As the Donald would say, unpresidented!

1 Like

No spin. It was literally taken from your CNN. We are in a historic moment, it’s not your average time. Let’s see how the 90% of the Democrats will evolve.

It’s not that Trump is not popular, it’s just the R and The D have a huge disagreement. Did Obama plant the “sharpest partisanship” decision?

“Partisanship is the sharpest divider in opinions on Trump (90% of Republicans approve vs. 10% of Democrats).”

Or that 90% Republicans.

https://twitter.com/Trump_Regrets

He also did the most any president did in his first two weeks in office. Why jumping into conclusions already, there’s really no point.

didn’t see much coverage on this

If you look at the stats on other presidents, he’s lower than all of them, but many had around 50% approval rates as well.

:frowning:

And they will continue to support him until their children are sent off to war (due to his and Bannon’s anti-islam beliefs) or he destroys the economy (trade wars and removing regulations that prevent depression like economic conditions) . Sadly, this presidency will not end will for America.

3 Likes

There is a possibility that your opinion could be wrong and their opinion could be right. We have no right to take control all the time. Before the election, some people say there is no chance for DJT to win, those people were wrong even though they were 1000% confident.

If the economy will boom and there will be no war, will you be always against him forever?

What does open mindedness mean?

I could be wrong. Let’s pray I am.

Eliot Cohen (expert in international affairs and served under Rice during the Bush administration) wrote an article in the Atlantic recently. It is worth a read. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-clarifying-moment-in-american-history/514868/?utm_source=twb

And for the record. I have no problem with a Republican leader as president. We need Democrats and Republicans to keep America balanced. Trump is not a Republican he is an Authoritarian and will test every check and balance in our system. Let’s hope “By the people, for the people” survives his presidency.

3 Likes

Seriously? You are supporting a “scholar” who advocates war against Iran and Iraq? We definitely do not want him to advocate for “World War IV”.

Thank god, he is not advising Trump or Obama.

"Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran’s government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed “regime change” in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on “pro-Western and anticlerical forces” in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be “wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)”. He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden’s capture: “The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden.”[9]

Later in 2001, Cohen, in what was becoming a dominant theme of his writing, advocated war against Iraq once again and proceeded to outline how effortless such a military campaign would be:

After Afghanistan, what? Iraq is the big prize… One important element will be the use of the Iraqi National Congress to help foster the collapse of the regime, and to provide a replacement for it. The INC, which has received bad, and in some cases malicious treatment, from the State Department and intelligence community over the years, may not be able to do the job with U.S. air support alone.[10]

As a result of his public statements on why a war against Iraq was necessary, Cohen was invited to appear on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports and amongst other statements given in response to questioning from Blitzer offered the judgment:

We know that he [Saddam Hussein] supports terror. There’s very solid evidence that the Iraqis were behind an attempt to assassinate President Bush’s father. And we—by the way, we do know that there is a connection with the 9/11 terrorists. We do know that Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. So…[11]

In testifying to a Congressional House committee later in 2002 Cohen was quoted as saying:

…the choice before the United States is a stark one, either to acquiesce in a situation which permits the regime of Saddam Hussein to restore his economy, acquire weapons of mass destruction and pose a lethal threat to his neighbors and to us, or to take action to overthrow him. In my view, the latter course, with all of its risks, is the correct one. Indeed, the dangers of failing to act in the near future are unacceptable.[12]

In a piece for the Wall Street Journal on 6 February 2003, Cohen fervently praised the presentation given by then Secretary of State Colin Powell in which he outlined the case for military action against Iraq to the United Nations. He went on to indicate that it was time for those who doubted that the case had been proven to support the Bush administration in their efforts.[13]

An article written for the Washington Post on 10 July 2005 raised the attention of commentators in the media and “blogosphere”. The piece, an attempt to articulate Cohen’s self identified roles as academic, pundit, and father, was written as his son prepared to deploy to Iraq to fight a war the elder Cohen had been calling for since early 2001. The piece ends:

There is a lot of talk these days about shaky public support for the war. That is not really the issue. Nor should cheerleading, as opposed to truth-telling, be our leaders’ chief concern. If we fail in Iraq—and I don’t think we will—it won’t be because the American people lack heart, but because leaders and institutions have failed. Rather than fretting about support at home, let them show themselves dedicated to waging and winning a strange kind of war and describing it as it is, candidly and in detail. Then the American people will give them all the support they need. The scholar in me is not surprised when our leaders blunder, although the pundit in me is dismayed when they do. What the father in me expects from our leaders is, simply, the truth—an end to happy talk and denials of error, and a seriousness equal to that of the men and women our country sends into the fight.[14]

This piece was extensively discussed in the blogosphere at the time, with some progressive blogs decrying that Cohen continued to maintain that the invasion was justified.[citation needed] Other commentators expressed surprise that a figure with such access and impeccable neoconservative credentials could appear to criticise the Bush Administration in such a way. Cohen later stated that he had received overwhelmingly positive responses from senior military officials in a resulting interview on C-SPAN.[citation needed] Cohen also continued his criticism of the conduct of the war stating that, “Those three guys—Tommy Franks, George Tenet, and L. Paul Bremer—got the Presidential Medal of Freedom. That’s just wrong.”

As a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Cohen had also been engaged in meetings involving US President George Bush. During these meetings Cohen provided advice on strategy in the Iraq conflict.[15]"

The people is the boss. Nobody has the right to monopolize the American power.

American people selected Trump. Everyone needs to respect the American people’s will.

Liberals have destroyed American border, destroyed American courtroom. Now the liberals are trying to destroy American election system. They are trying to destroy American law enforcement. They are trying to destroy our police force.

Here in lies the problem. Me saying that his opinion is worth considering does not mean that I support him and everything he has ever done. Rather, I think he has spent his life working and studying in this area. It’s worth hearing him out and then deciding for yourself.

In order for the “people is boss” to remain, Trump must be held accountable and respect the laws the people made and the constitution. Without this, Trump/Bannon will be the boss. You may agree with his decisions completely now and find they reflect yours. But if you don’t insist he abides to the constitution and laws, you may disagree with him later and your power to have a say will be gone.

2 Likes

What did you do when Obama violated Constitution? Did you forget to protest and hold him accountable?

When did Trump violate Constituion?

Obama’s did not disrespect the judicial branch of our government when his actions were found unconstitutional by our legal system. Trump, however, has launch direct attacks on any lawyer siding against him.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the risk to democracy caused by the Trump presidency.

3 Likes

Some funny Trump videos

2 Likes