Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Trump Presidency Poll (June 2018)

Trump Presidency Poll (June 2018)  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Trump be reelected in 2020 if the economy is strong, unemployment is low, wages are rising, and he isn't facing impeachment?

  2. 2. Is Trump a better president than the following relatively recent presidents?

    • Trump is a better president than Carter was
    • Trump is a better president than Reagan was
    • Trump is a better president than GHW Bush was
    • Trump is a better president than Clinton was
    • Trump is a better president than GW Bush was
    • Trump is a better president than Obama was
    • Trump is a better president than Hillary Clinton would have been
    • Trump is worse president than all those listed here, including worse than how Hillary Clinton likely would have been.
  3. 3. Do you view the Trump president more favorably than not?



Recommended Posts

New Poll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

New Poll

There is an interesting anecdote from Canadian history about everyone's agreement on Trump's great likelihood of re-election in the above circumstances. In 1957, the Liberal PM Louis St. Laurent commanded a strong economy, high wages, international prestige (Canada had risen from an isolated Dominion to a global Middle Power - including mediating the Suez Crisis of 1956 and annexing Newfoundland - during his tenure), and the living standard was the highest Canada had enjoyed to that date since Confederation in 1867. HOWEVER, the Progressive Conservative leader John Diefenbaker successfully attacked the arrogance, complacency, out-of-touch nature, and sense of entitlement of the St. Laurent government, and the lack of discipline and conduct of St. Laurent's cabinet, and certain key scandals which St. Laurent had almost brushed under the carpet by the election campaign, and Diefenbaker defeated St. Laurent regardless of his government's accolades (the 1957 Canadian Federal election is one of the scenarios I fully completed for the old PM4E engine). Just something to consider and think about - politics is a strange game, and NOT a lucrative one to gamble on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it to GW Bush though. You could never doubt that he always loved America and was always on our side. Sometimes with Obama and Trump you don't get that same feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ThePotatoWalrus

"(George Bush) was always on our side." I don't quite understand what you're stating here, could you explain a bit? I personally don't see sending 4,486 people to die in an illegal war as "on our side" but maybe I'm missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I'll give it to GW Bush though. You could never doubt that he always loved America and was always on our side. Sometimes with Obama and Trump you don't get that same feeling.

But did Bush love the U.S. Constitution? He seemed to trample it through fear-mongering and playing on the zeitgeist when he could (a tactic that was a hallmark of the rise of Fascist regimes, even if Bush certainly didn't go all the way in that regard). And, he didn't love America enough not to NEEDLESSLY and FLAGRANTLY drag it's international reputation through the mud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, @ThePotatoWalrus, it was the big American oil and contracting corporations that Bush loved and was on the side of. Anything else was highly dubious when the evidence is all laid down. American rights were stripped by the Patriot Act, over 4000 U.S. soldiers, thousands of soldiers of other militaries, and hundreds of innocent civilians were killed, two nations were plunged into anarchy, and the U.S. international reputation was dragged like a soiled rag along the way - ALL to enrich and fill the coffers of those oil and contracting corporations that he and his family had so many allies amongst their shareholders - in fact, one of the major shareholders of one of the larger said corporations was Bush' VP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I'll give it to GW Bush though. You could never doubt that he always loved America and was always on our side. Sometimes with Obama and Trump you don't get that same feeling.

I'm not so sure how old you are, but it flies in the face of his: illegal invasion of Iraq(resulting over 3000 deaths for Americans, and 40000 thousand for Iraqis, and resulting in an instable region for well over a decade), botched handling of the Katrina cleanup(let alone putting the highly unqualified Mike Brown in charge of FEMA at the time),  the push to insure Same-Sex marriage is the only acceptable variety allowed at the federal level, the lack of oversight in the banking industry that lead to the largest crash since the 1930's,  denied funding for stem cell research(despite the medical benefits), expanding government surveillance through the creation of the NSA.

There is a reason why he is consistently viewed  as one of the worst presidents in American history. Not because of partisan hackery, but from failed policies that we are still dealing with, and will for generations. 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying Dubya was a good President. He definitely wasn't. I'm simply saying that you could tell he really loved this country and its people, unlike our last two Presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I'm not saying Dubya was a good President. He definitely wasn't. I'm simply saying that you could tell he really loved this country and its people, unlike our last two Presidents.

How did Obama show that he loved his country less than Bush? I didn't get any feeling that he did love his country less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I'm not saying Dubya was a good President. He definitely wasn't. I'm simply saying that you could tell he really loved this country and its people, unlike our last two Presidents.

What makes you think Obama didn't think what he was doing what was best for his country (and don't get me wrong I am no fan of Obama but what elevates Bush above him in the "Loving thy country" regard)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I'm not saying Dubya was a good President. He definitely wasn't. I'm simply saying that you could tell he really loved this country and its people, unlike our last two Presidents.

 

4 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

What makes you think Obama didn't think what he was doing what was best for his country (and don't get me wrong I am no fan of Obama but what elevates Bush above him in the "Loving thy country" regard)?

At least Obama wasn't in the pocket of big oil and contracting corporations, doing their bidding to the detriment of the American people and nation. Bush was in the pocket of such corporations (a major shareholder of one was his VP, I remind you, @ThePotatoWalrus). It's not really a show of "love" to sell the supposed subject of said love's interest up the river to a few big corporations. Personally, I also believe his proposed anti-same-sex marriage amendment and his denial of stem cell research, as bad as they are, were not a core part of his Presidency, but much moreso a bone he threw social conservatives to keep their loyalty and prevent them from mulling over and seriously considering his obviously failed policies and joining the libertarians and the majority of the Democrats in a legislative revolt, leaving only the hard Hawks on his side - basically smoke and mirrors and divide and conquer tactics to maintain his support. I couldn't help but notice, as an example, he didn't fight that hard at all for the anti-same-sex amendment - it struck me as a ploy even at the time. People like @Reagan04 should consider that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, like Obama was scandal-free, and wasn't in the pocket of Soros, the (((media))), healthcare companies, and wasn't a war hawk like Bush. I agree that Obama was better than Bush but Obama was even more of a war hawk than Bush was and it's not even close.

Share this post


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

Yeah, like Obama was scandal-free, and wasn't in the pocket of Soros, the media, healthcare companies, and wasn't a war hawk like Bush. I agree that Obama was better than Bush but Obama was even more of a war hawk than Bush was and it's not even close.

I'd argue equal hawkishness but all you did was prove they were both scandal riddled war hawk corpratists instead of your assertion that Bush loved America more than Obama did.

Share this post


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

I'd argue equal hawkishness but all you did was prove they were both scandal riddled war hawk corpratists instead of your assertion that Bush loved America more than Obama did.

That was in response to what @Patine said.

Can't really prove with facts to prove someone else's feelings. Just a subjective opinion.

Share this post


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

Yeah, like Obama was scandal-free, and wasn't in the pocket of Soros, the (((media))), healthcare companies, and wasn't a war hawk like Bush. I agree that Obama was better than Bush but Obama was even more of a war hawk than Bush was and it's not even close.

Of course, the other part you missed was me praising Obama - which I never have would be the reason. But, for inexplicable reason, I've been accused by quite a few in RL and on the Internet of being a staunch, loyal, and firm supporter of Obama and Clinton and all they say and do JUST because I condemn Bush and Trump. The world would be far better off if it were purged utterly of this disgusting plague of Gnostic and Manichaeistic that has so infected so much socially, politically, culturally, economically, and religiously and been the cause of so much divisiveness, ruination, unproductive thinking, and even - I'm going to use the word - mainstream stupidity. I'm tired of being asked complex socio-political questions or having my opinion elicited for such, and being told I only have two possible, extreme, black-and-white, binary, siege-mentality, and overly, unrealistically simplistic answers to choose my answer from, and no other answer is even possibly valid.

Share this post


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

plague of Gnostic and Manichaeistic

I can understand condemning Manichean thinking, but why Gnostic thinking, which is not only geared to self-knowledge but views ignorance as the primary sin? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

I can understand condemning Manichean thinking, but why Gnostic thinking, which is not only geared to self-knowledge but views ignorance as the primary sin? 

Actually, Gnostic thinking did not take on the rising above ignorance quality until the Illuminati and Freemasons embraced the idea and embellished and expanded upon it. The aspects of Gnosticism that I find so aggregious (and which are obviously the most popular in the world today) is the "Elect" theory, which states a particular group of people (insert which, depending on the given agenda) are "higher, finer, more civilized, more evolved, guaranteed salvation, rightful inheritors of the earth, noble stewards, etc." just by nature of WHO they are, demographically, as opposed to WHAT they've accomplished or achieved or what merit they've earned or shown.

Share this post


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

Actually, Gnostic thinking did not take on the rising above ignorance quality until the Illuminati and Freemasons embraced the idea and embellished and expanded upon it. The aspects of Gnosticism that I find so aggregious (and which are obviously the most popular in the world today) is the "Elect" theory, which states a particular group of people (insert which, depending on the given agenda) are "higher, finer, more civilized, more evolved, guaranteed salvation, rightful inheritors of the earth, noble stewards, etc." just by nature of WHO they are, demographically, as opposed to WHAT they've accomplished or achieved or what merit they've earned or shown.

The elect comes from John Calvin. The rising above ignorance quality of Gnosticism existed nearly at the beginning, if you've read any of the texts. "If you use all that is within you, what you use will save you; if you do not use all that is within you, what you do not use will destroy you." and then the whole (paraphrasing here), "Examine yourself, and when you truly know yourself, you will know the depth of all things (in relation to yourself), then you are my twin and true companion." I've read about 7 of the gnostic gospels, and most of them strive for self-knowledge and eradicating ignorance than anything in Pauline Christianity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Yeah, like Obama was scandal-free, and wasn't in the pocket of Soros, the (((media))), healthcare companies, and wasn't a war hawk like Bush. I agree that Obama was better than Bush but Obama was even more of a war hawk than Bush was and it's not even close.

Bush was better than Obama. I haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that he was "in the pocket of Soros, the media, healthcare companies,". Bush simply invaded Iraq based on the intel he had then. Besides Iraq shouldn't even exist anyway it was the result of colonialism the borders are probably the reason for the iraqi violence and not the US invasion.

Share this post


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

Bush was better than Obama. I haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that he was "in the pocket of Soros, the media, healthcare companies,". Bush simply invaded Iraq based on the intel he had then. Besides Iraq shouldn't even exist anyway it was the result of colonialism the borders are probably the reason for the iraqi violence and not the US invasion.

>Iraq shouldn't exist

>Supports Israel

Pick one or the other, you can't have both.

Share this post


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

Bush was better than Obama. I haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that he was "in the pocket of Soros, the media, healthcare companies,". Bush simply invaded Iraq based on the intel he had then. Besides Iraq shouldn't even exist anyway it was the result of colonialism the borders are probably the reason for the iraqi violence and not the US invasion.

 

1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

>Iraq shouldn't exist

>Supports Israel

Pick one or the other, you can't have both.

By this logic, Turkey should still control the whole Middle East except Iran...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

I'd argue equal hawkishness but all you did was prove they were both scandal riddled war hawk corpratists instead of your assertion that Bush loved America more than Obama did.

Yeah Obama massively expanded drone warfare in nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Sure it isn't "boots on the ground", but it is still a form of American military presence in another nation. 

Share this post


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

 

By this logic, Turkey should still control the whole Middle East except Iran...

Well the post does require some clarification. I was saying that Iraqs borders were unnatural and drawn by European colonialists for their own reasons despite its trying to combine groups with bad blood into one country and expecting it to go well.

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

×