Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Trump Forum Approval Poll (May 2018)

Trump Forum Approval Poll (May 2018)  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. I approve of Trump's presidency in the following areas.

    • His political appointments (non-judicial)
    • His judicial appointments
    • His handling of the media
    • His use of Twitter
    • His economic and trade policies
    • His handling of foreign affairs
    • His handling of the military and role as commander-in-chief
    • His handling of civil rights issues
    • His handling of the immigration issue
    • His criminal justice policy
    • His handling of labor and business
    • His handling of education policy
    • His handling of environmental and energy policy
    • His handling of finance and Wall Street
    • His use of rhetoric in speeches
    • His relations with his own party
    • His handling of Democrats
    • His handling of gun control policy
    • His responses to the Russian investigation
    • None of the above
  2. 2. Trump has exceeded my initial exceptions as a president

  3. 3. If North Korea and South Korea reach a truly lasting peace treaty, formally ending the war and establishing friendly relations, then Donald Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize

    • Yes, this is a major peace-making breakthrough, similar to Carter's Camp David Accord.
    • Yes, as much as I disagree with almost everything that he does, he should at least be strongly considered.
    • No, that isn't enough to get the Nobel Prize
    • No, despite that, he is sowing too much discord elsewhere.


Recommended Posts

New Poll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Barack Obama, a president who increased drone strikes, and started 7 new interventions can win one, I guess Trump can too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

If Barack Obama, a president who increased drone strikes, and started 7 new interventions can win one, I guess Trump can too.

I think an inadvertently collapsed nuclear test site should get the prize, but I don't think it's eligible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly believe, that CHINAAAAAA *sorry to troll Trump* made 80% of the North Korean flip flop than Trump.

Or, Kim Jong just threaten Trump to better return the table behind with his own party.

But seriously, if Kim flopped in january, long after the whole escalation, I do not think that Trump has something to do with.

Or, Iran would go same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Patine said:

I think an inadvertently collapsed nuclear test site should get the prize, but I don't think it's eligible...

 

12 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

If Barack Obama, a president who increased drone strikes, and started 7 new interventions can win one, I guess Trump can too.

My biggest gripe is: While Obama showed signs that he felt he didn't deserve the Peace Prize, Trump feels entitled to the prize. And it is insulting to think that merely organizing two leaders(that may or may not lead to a permanent peace) to talk is akin the works of Mother Theresa, Desmund Tutu or Malala Yousafzai . Even Barack Obama understood the paradox of a sitting post 9/11 President receiving the Peace Prize by commenting, "perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars."  And yet, President Trump is begging for this prize, without seeing the irony of bragging of previously dropping the Mother of all bombs in Afghanistan, and  drone strikes in Syria.  But then again, Harry Kissinger did win the prize for organizing talks between North and South Vietnam, so what do I know lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

 

My biggest gripe is: While Obama showed signs that he felt he didn't deserve the Peace Prize, Trump feels entitled to the prize. And it is insulting to think that merely organizing two leaders(that may or may not lead to a permanent peace) to talk is akin the works of Mother Theresa, Desmund Tutu or Malala Yousafzai . Even Barack Obama understood the paradox of a sitting post 9/11 President receiving the Peace Prize by commenting, "perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars."  And yet, President Trump is begging for this prize, without seeing the irony of bragging of previously dropping the Mother of all bombs in Afghanistan, and  drone strikes in Syria.  But then again, Harry Kissinger did win the prize for organizing talks between North and South Vietnam, so what do I know lol.

And to think, Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, jr. never got one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

 

My biggest gripe is: While Obama showed signs that he felt he didn't deserve the Peace Prize, Trump feels entitled to the prize. And it is insulting to think that merely organizing two leaders(that may or may not lead to a permanent peace) to talk is akin the works of Mother Theresa, Desmund Tutu or Malala Yousafzai . Even Barack Obama understood the paradox of a sitting post 9/11 President receiving the Peace Prize by commenting, "perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars."  And yet, President Trump is begging for this prize, without seeing the irony of bragging of previously dropping the Mother of all bombs in Afghanistan, and  drone strikes in Syria.  But then again, Harry Kissinger did win the prize for organizing talks between North and South Vietnam, so what do I know lol.

To be fair if you read into the practices Mother Teresa was doing at her "houses of the dying", like deathbed baptisms and haphazard conditions for the patients you'd be shocked. She was even quoted as saying  “Pain and suffering have come into your life but remember pain sorrow suffering are but the kiss of Jesus a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put "None of the Above" for part 1. I couldn't even think of anything that came close to approval. Although he's done particulars within these groups that I would approve. In the second part, I say that he exceeds expectations, because I expected even more disasters and irrational actions. Most of his irrationality has been vocal, and he's been restrained from acting on some of it. Basically, from a scale of 1 to 10, I was expecting a 0, and I would give him a 1 or 1.5, maybe a 2 for not sinking the economy (yet, anyways). I do think that if it is proven that he secures a true and lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, then he should be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth would trying to start a nuclear war earn you a Nobel Peace Prize?! Blow that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I put "None of the Above" for part 1. I couldn't even think of anything that came close to approval. Although he's done particulars within these groups that I would approve. In the second part, I say that he exceeds expectations, because I expected even more disasters and irrational actions. Most of his irrationality has been vocal, and he's been restrained from acting on some of it. Basically, from a scale of 1 to 10, I was expecting a 0, and I would give him a 1 or 1.5, maybe a 2 for not sinking the economy (yet, anyways). I do think that if it is proven that he secures a true and lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, then he should be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

 

33 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Why on earth would trying to start a nuclear war earn you a Nobel Peace Prize?! Blow that!

He was indeed all ready for war, and seeming to push in that direction (although he didn't once say he, himself, planned to use nuclear weapons - that was Kim's main thing). Kim suddenly backed down (whether it be due to a collapsed test as the Chinese say, or for other reasons), but I don't believe Trump was even remotely a "peacemaker" in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

He was indeed all ready for war, and seeming to push in that direction (although he didn't once say he, himself, planned to use nuclear weapons - that was Kim's main thing). Kim suddenly backed down (whether it be due to a collapsed test as the Chinese say, or for other reasons), but I don't believe Trump was even remotely a "peacemaker" in this situation.

I don't expect Kim to fulfill his end. He'll delay this as long as he can to keep the attention on him, possibly still working on nuclear upgrades in a private location. I also think Kim could sign a peace treaty, formally ending the war, and then just reigniting it if he doesn't win the Nobel Peace Price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I don't expect Kim to fulfill his end. He'll delay this as long as he can to keep the attention on him, possibly still working on nuclear upgrades in a private location. I also think Kim could sign a peace treaty, formally ending the war, and then just reigniting it if he doesn't win the Nobel Peace Price. 

I wish wars were like they were in the 17th and 18th Centuries, in that the heads-of-state-and-government had to personally lead the military on the front, potentially putting their lives at risk, and the sons of the wealthy and powerful magnates of government and business were EXPECTED to serve in war as a matter of honour, not have it being perfectly acceptable and normal to have easiest ways to avoid and get out of such service. I imagine modern world leaders would be far less quick to declare wars and other military actions constantly and with such impunity and callousness if THAT were the case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On North Korea I feel like he just stumbled into this more than anything. I doubt that his "fire and fury" comment was a conscious application of the Nixonian "madman theory," and even if it was, I think what might be happening is that the effect it had was not on North Korea but China, who simply don't want this thing to flare up and are using their influence with NK to urge Kim to cool his jets.

I also just object in principle to the idea that you should get a Nobel Peace Prize by threatening to start a devastating war, or pretending to be willing to start one. I don't think Kim or Xi should get it either if this works out - if anybody should, it's probably Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2018 at 6:29 PM, WVProgressive said:

If Barack Obama, a president who increased drone strikes, and started 7 new interventions can win one, I guess Trump can too.

This.

But also, I don't attribute a single bit of the talks between the Koreas to President Trump. If anything, the talks occurred precisely in spite of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lyly said:

This.

But also, I don't attribute a single bit of the talks between the Koreas to President Trump. If anything, the talks occurred precisely in spite of him.

But Trump's actions were not those of a peacemaker. I'm not even convinced Korean peace was even his goal at the time. And I'm still not convinced it was because of Trump that Kim ultimately backed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

But Trump's actions were not those of a peacemaker. I'm not even convinced Korean peace was even his goal at the time. And I'm still not convinced it was because of Trump that Kim ultimately backed down.

Right, that's what I'm saying as well.

It's my argument that Moon and Kim and probably China as well read the writing on the wall about Trump re: launching a war in North Korea, which goes against the long-term goals of all three of those powers (all three want to integrate slowly and avoid war or other upsets) and figured that the best way to avoid that was to paint him into a corner by re-igniting peace talks.

The talks in Korea right now are exceptionally low-risk. Talks happen all the time and the same shit has been discussed over and over again since the 1990s (though I will say there's been a lot more legwork accompanying these talks than most others in the past, and especially a lot of sign of commitment from North Korea; usually its South Korea putting up all goods). On the other hand, avoiding the US President unilaterally involved everyone in a pointless and devastating war is high-reward.

In the end, China and both Koreas have played their hands exceptionally well and proven that American leadership in the peninsula is not ultimate anymore. That's not so great for Trump, in fact, so I am not surprised that everyone is offering up him up as peacemaker as some kind of a conciliation for such an embarrassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Trump's approval is up to 44.4% in the RCP average, highest it's been since March of last year:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

42.1% on 538 (they make some polling adjustments):

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Evidently he's in the same vicinity as Reagan (43.6%), Carter (40.5%), Ford (42.8%), and Truman (43.1%) at the same point in his presidency. Lags Obama (48.7%) by a bit, and Clinton (54.2%) & Nixon (57.1%) by fair amounts. Both Bushes, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower were a bit higher.

Looks like Clinton was the first president for which there was a good deal of polling, the averages for prior presidents look like there were one or two polls a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thr33 said:

Interestingly, Trump's approval is up to 44.4% in the RCP average, highest it's been since March of last year:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

42.1% on 538 (they make some polling adjustments):

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Evidently he's in the same vicinity as Reagan (43.6%), Carter (40.5%), Ford (42.8%), and Truman (43.1%) at the same point in his presidency. Lags Obama (48.7%) by a bit, and Clinton (54.2%) & Nixon (57.1%) by fair amounts. Both Bushes, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower were a bit higher.

Looks like Clinton was the first president for which there was a good deal of polling, the averages for prior presidents look like there were one or two polls a month.

I find those approval ratings change so quickly, are so fickle, and have so little direct and traceable tie to said President's re-election bid and post-office legacy all-in-all they're practically worthless as statistics or measuring gauges of Presidential competence or success, in the long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I find those approval ratings change so quickly, are so fickle, and have so little direct and traceable tie to said President's re-election bid and post-office legacy all-in-all they're practically worthless as statistics or measuring gauges of Presidential competence or success, in the long-term.

I guess it depends on the quality of polling (and an aggregate is more informative than an individual poll). Even if the topline isn't great, a lot of the internals/crosstabs can tell us something. Presidential approvals don't tell a ton about re-election bids (since the opposing candidate doesn't exist, and is just generic), though I think they have some predictive value in midterms.

In terms of legacy, that's a different conversation, and you're probably right. I forget who I heard this from (I think it was a roundtable on C-SPAN), but I remember some historian recently said that when writing on history, most authors avoid writing on the last 20-30 years because there is a fair deal of bias at the time (could be in either direction), and it's difficult to contextualize what actions taken at the time could mean down the line.

A little off topic, but this approach is a bit different from my favorite non-basketball topic, basketball history. There is a fair deal of value in reading and taking into account what a player's contemporaries and what sportswriters thought of a player at the time. This is mostly because there is asymmetric information - the further back you go, the less tape of players' games there is, and the less quality analytical data exists.

I don't know if there is a parallel for presidential legacies or history in general to this. Though, I suppose the Overton Window is in play. A president could be successful given the standards of the time and in the eyes of his contemporaries, but might not be when viewed in retrospect by historians (and vice versa) because in different periods of time, different things are viewed differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thr33 said:

I guess it depends on the quality of polling (and an aggregate is more informative than an individual poll). Even if the topline isn't great, a lot of the internals/crosstabs can tell us something. Presidential approvals don't tell a ton about re-election bids (since the opposing candidate doesn't exist, and is just generic), though I think they have some predictive value in midterms.

In terms of legacy, that's a different conversation, and you're probably right. I forget who I heard this from (I think it was a roundtable on C-SPAN), but I remember some historian recently said that when writing on history, most authors avoid writing on the last 20-30 years because there is a fair deal of bias at the time (could be in either direction), and it's difficult to contextualize what actions taken at the time could mean down the line.

A little off topic, but this approach is a bit different from my favorite non-basketball topic, basketball history. There is a fair deal of value in reading and taking into account what a player's contemporaries and what sportswriters thought of a player at the time. This is mostly because there is asymmetric information - the further back you go, the less tape of players' games there is, and the less quality analytical data exists.

I don't know if there is a parallel for presidential legacies or history in general to this. Though, I suppose the Overton Window is in play. A president could be successful given the standards of the time and in the eyes of his contemporaries, but might not be when viewed in retrospect by historians (and vice versa) because in different periods of time, different things are viewed differently.

I think there's an equivalent - a phenomenon called "mythologization." Supporters of people like, say, Napoleon, Thomas Jefferson, Simon Bolivar, and others whom no one alive today was alive during the lifetime of, or knows anyone personally who was, alive in the days of said figure, and no photographs or recorded voice of the figure exists, are often the subject of being "less fallible, more capable, larger than life, and responsible for more that goes on today," or many of their devoted supporters say or promote, than more contemporary figures. I think a lesser version of that occurs with more recent but still past individuals, and an even more pronounced version with figures of Medieval times or Antiquity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Kerry. The feeling of being stabbed in the back and having the rug pulled out from under you suddenly by the head-of-state you were negotiating in good faith for in genuine hopes of a peaceful resolution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Patine said:

Poor Kerry. The feeling of being stabbed in the back and having the rug pulled out from under you suddenly by the head-of-state you were negotiating in good faith for in genuine hopes of a peaceful resolution...

The deal was unconstitutional it needs to be approved by the senate not downvoted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

The deal was unconstitutional it needs to be approved by the senate not downvoted. 

It's funny, isn't it, how U.S. politics works. If the a politician a given American dislikes or disagrees with does something obviously or arguably unconstitutional, they're immediately called out on it. But, if a politician they agree with or support does something unconstitutional, then they're "necessary measures," or claims of unconstitutionality are "partisan attacks on them," or other justifications, all the way up to people claiming unconstitutionality of such being "guilty of treason and should be executed summarily," (which I heard a few times back in the Bush era from Neo-Con pundits responding to people claiming Bush's actions were unconstitutional). So, in my viewpoint, the "such-and-such's actions are unconstitutional" card seems to have become just as purely partisan and of very little objective nature as most of other aspects of the U.S. political debate, nowadays, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎02‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 9:58 PM, WVProgressive said:

To be fair if you read into the practices Mother Teresa was doing at her "houses of the dying", like deathbed baptisms and haphazard conditions for the patients you'd be shocked. She was even quoted as saying  “Pain and suffering have come into your life but remember pain sorrow suffering are but the kiss of Jesus a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”.

This. In the end I would say she did more harm than good. She was simply an agent of the rich, and her ties to dictators and fraudsters cast her integrity into doubt in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×