[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[xyloscissor]

if the house allows him to serve as Secretary of State, it's suicide.

I'm not so sure of that, just think for a few about the past 2 of them we've had

 

[ryzno]

 

[Johnnypenso]

No they'll claim Obama set the tone

Doesn't the incoming POTUS and his party get a 4 year get out of jail free card in scapegoating the last guy? Can't remember how many times the Dems and their mouthpieces in the left wing media blamed Bush for everything under the sun.

 

[xyloscissor]

Let's all hope that Trump does not do that, we all know what it is like to take over a job from someone before us. Some of it good and some bad, just do the job to the best of your ability I say.

 

[Dotini]

Let's all hope that Trump does not do that, we all know what it is like to take over a job from someone before us. Some of it good and some bad, just do the job to the best of your ability I say.

To be a politician, especially at the executive level, is not an ordinary job like dogcatcher or truck driver. It is a job done with sharp words, sharp elbows and sharp knives. Blood and reputations get smeared and left behind on the floor. More than one general has been killed in the line of duty, and so has more than one president. And not necessarily by the enemy, but by his own people. Let me tell you about Patton and Kennedy. Trump wears a vest and carries a gun. He obviously has many very real enemies among his own countrymen and political class. He will need the luck of the Irish, the luck of the Gods and the luck of the innocent to survive his term in office. And he is none of those things.

 

[McLaren]

Why is Rex Tillerson nominated to be Secretary of State? He's the CEO of a multinational oil company, why would he know anything about foreign affairs?

http://time.com/4634078/rex-tillerson-south-china-sea-donald-trump/

Not my words, but sharing a post that gives some reasoning.

So why should Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, be Secretary of State?

- Because he's an incredibly successful businessman who led one of the biggest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil is in fact bigger than 80% of all the countries in the world.

- He's known for his ability to negotiate deals that are favorable for his side, unlike what the deal makers of the last few decades have given us.

- He got to where he is through merit, not by being the politician with the biggest smile and loudest lies.

- And no, being the head of an oil company does not somehow make him evil. Quite to the contrary, oil, despite all the disdain heaped upon it, has been the life-blood of the American economy for 150 years. As the the people from Texas to North Dakota have seen over the past few years, it's an industry that provides working Americans the type of good paying jobs that have otherwise been in short supply. It's as American an industry as any in our history.

- His ability to reach agreement with Russia is a strength, not a weakness. And as his testimony unfolds, it's becoming more and more obvious that, far from being a Kremlin lapdog, Rex Tillerson will be tougher on Russia than we've been led to believe. His only proviso has been that policy must be made only after all available intelligence has been examined. Senators have tried to get him to say Putin is a war criminal, that he directly ordered the hacking, that he had journalists killed, etc. And Tillerson's answer has been that it appears from the public record to be the case, but that he doesn't yet have access to classified info and he'd want to see the full picture before making a conclusion. Not a bad answer given how everyone else seems to be rushing to conclusions one way or the other.

The real concern is that Senators seem to view his experience in the private sector as a liability, repeatedly questioning whether the successful leader of a corporation could lead a government department that answers to citizens not just to share holders. Well, I may have deep and serious concerns about many of President-elect Trump's policies, but his commitment to populate government with the best leaders, not just the best politicians, is a breathe of fresh air and a step toward the meritocracy that our country should strive to be.

 

[eran0004]

It's not an opinion.

Not an opinion? Then what is it?

A President breaking campaign promises? Not new.

Never said it was.

A President electing questionable folks to his cabinet? Not new.

Never said it was.

An outsider who even made it that far to be President? Not new.

Never said it was.

Claims that a President will face backlash more than any other? Definitely not new.

Never said it was.

What I said was unique for Trump compared to previous presidents is his populism and his anti-establishment line. He has polarised the US like no president before him. He pointed at the establishment and called them incompetent and corrupt and as a result it's essential that he now shows that he can take action (or find someone to blame). Otherwise he will lose most of the supporters that he got and end up with enemies on all fronts.

BTW, you forgot to throw in racist & sexist as well. I know your source of info uses those words as well to describe Trump to validate their argument.

Well, sexism and racism are often components of fascism. I'm not so sure if Trump is a racist, but he's certainly xenophobic. And he doesn't tick all the boxes for fascism (hence borderline) but plenty enough for it to be concerning.

Let's say that he won't be able to do almost anything he promised and let's say that he blames it on the congress. If his followers are willing to accept that en masse then the step towards authoritarian rule is not so far away.

"That can't happen" - and yet it sometimes does. The US is no special case in that regard.

 

[McLaren]

Not an opinion? Then what is it

Fact. Nothing you keep harping about Trump is unique to him a President.

Never said it was.
Never said it was.
Never said it was.
Never said it was.

You certainly act like it is with Trump.

What I said was unique for Trump compared to previous presidents is his populism and his anti-establishment line. He has polarised the US like no president before him. He pointed at the establishment and called them incompetent and corrupt and as a result it's essential that he now shows that he can take action (or find someone to blame). Otherwise he will lose most of the supporters that he got and end up with enemies on all fronts

Again, not new & already addressed by @LMSCorvetteGT2 that the former 2 Presidents took a similar approach at the campaign by acting like they weren't typical politicians.

It's not going to really be a bigger problem though, you're adding conjecture at a lot of places. Obama claimed he could make change cause he wasn't a career politician, Bush claimed he was a reformer. Once again people make bull crap claims to win elections and power, most of the time that power won, is quite limited. For some reason people think it's all encompassing.

Let's say that he won't be able to do almost anything he promised and let's say that he blames it on the congress. If his followers are willing to accept that en masse then the step towards authoritarian rule is not so far away.

"That can't happen" - and yet it sometimes does. The US is no special case in that regard.

What do you think Obama did half the time he couldn't get any of his campaign promises fulfilled?

"The Republicans won't work with me." Better believe, even if they're the same party, Trump will pull that same card if they get in his way.

 

[xyloscissor]

Authoritarian?

All recent presidents have been that way, ignoring the only document they swear to uphold, nothing new there and to claim Trump will somehow be worse is a joke, it would not surprise me if he was better in that regard tbh.

 

[eran0004]

Fact. Nothing you keep harping about Trump is unique to him a President.

And that is what we call "your opinion". You think it's a fact because you think that your opinion is the truth. It's easy to make such a mistake.

the former 2 Presidents took a similar approach at the campaign by acting like they weren't typical politicians.

None of them opted for the populist anti-establishment approach.

What do you think Obama did half the time he couldn't get any of his campaign promises fulfilled?

Yes, because that is the reality of democracy. The interesting thing is what happens when you then say that this is something that needs to change, democracy has proved itself to be inefficient.

"The Republicans won't work with me." Better believe, even if they're the same party, Trump will pull that same card if they get in his way.

Indeed he will. I'm more concerned with the card he'll play next after that.

 

[xyloscissor]

 

[Rage Racer]

New evidence that Trump is a Russian agent:

 

[fatkrakr]

The problem with politics in the USA today is it has become a us against them system. It doesn't matter what the issue is, if you want it I'm against it. I don't know why they believe that's their job now instead of working together. No it was never perfect, but its also never been this divided.
An example of our current government at work, you can trade lunch with any thing they need to vote on..
Dem. I want a salad.
Rep. I want soup.
Dem. and pizza
Rep. naw cheese burgers
Dem. and soda pop
Rep. nope coffee.
2nd Rep. We don't like coffee.
1st Rep. I know but he already picked soda.
The Dems. rammed thru Obamacare without a single Rep. and the Reps. are going to rip it away without a single Dem. I don't think that's ever happened before with any thing. It doesn't matter what side your on you Have to want to see that change, no?

 

[ryzno]

Same story, two different rants...

Trump reacts to Lewis' comment that he is not a 'legitimate president'
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atl...mment-on-not-a-legitimate-president/484385533

Trump to John Lewis: Fix your ‘horrible’ Atlanta district
http://www.ajc.com/news/trump-john-lewis-fix-your-horrible-atlanta-district/wmRq3ltwXT0FfnkM9nbAwL/

 

[McLaren]

And that is what we call "your opinion". You think it's a fact because you think that your opinion is the truth. It's easy to make such a mistake.

No, that would be your mistake. But, it's easy to keep your blinders on when it's your own claims you keep trying to make believe.

None of them opted for the populist anti-establishment approach.

You're right. However, you continuously miss the fact that like Trump, they also tried to run as non-traditional politicians. Henceforth, why Trump isn't as unique as you think.

Yes, because that is the reality of democracy. The interesting thing is what happens when you then say that this is something that needs to change, democracy has proved itself to be inefficient.

So it's the reality of democracy when Obama blames failed promises on Congress. But, if Trump does it, it's a step towards authortarian rule?

 

[Johnnypenso]

And that is what we call "your opinion". You think it's a fact because you think that your opinion is the truth. It's easy to make such a mistake.
None of them opted for the populist anti-establishment approach.

"Fundamentally transforming the United States of America" says hello.
"In 5 days you can turn the page on policies that put Wall Street ahead of folks on Main street" says hi there.
"Ordinary Americans can't take a backseat to CEO's and Wall Street Banks for four more years" says how ya doin'?

 

[Touring Mars]

New evidence that Trump is a Russian agent:

We've known for some time that Donald Trump is full of himself...

 

[eran0004]

No, that would be your mistake. But, it's easy to keep your blinders on when it's your own claims you keep trying to make believe.

You're right. However, you continuously miss the fact that like Trump, they also tried to run as non-traditional politicians. Henceforth, why Trump isn't as unique as you think.

It's not that he is non-traditional that makes him unique, it's the fact that he is a populist and anti-establishment and if you don't think that is unique then please provide an example of another president who had those qualities.

So it's the reality of democracy when Obama blames failed promises on Congress. But, if Trump does it, it's a step towards authortarian rule?

No, it's always the reality of democracy. The step towards authoritarian rule is when the president says that congress makes politics inefficient and that it's time to change the system.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's not that he is non-traditional that makes him unique, it's the fact that he is a populist and anti-establishment and if you don't think that is unique then please provide an example of another president who had those qualities.

Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[Tornado]

Hope and change was so blatantly anti-establishment that it got him a Nobel Peace Prize in a few weeks.

 

[Joey D]

What I said was unique for Trump compared to previous presidents is his populism and his anti-establishment line. He has polarised the US like no president before him. He pointed at the establishment and called them incompetent and corrupt and as a result it's essential that he now shows that he can take action (or find someone to blame). Otherwise he will lose most of the supporters that he got and end up with enemies on all fronts.

I'm not sure how much you know about the last 4 presidents we've had in the US, but they have done their fair share of polarizing the US in ways their predecessor couldn't have dreamed of. Take Bush the younger, he held the highest approval rating of all time for a president, he also held the lowest approval rating of all time, with a high/low being 90/19. If that doesn't show how a president can polarize the people in America, I'm not sure what will.

I think you also forget Obama ran on the platform of "Hope and Change", which he did neither. He was supposed to be a different kind of president, but ended up being the same as every other president except for the fact he was at war every single day he was in office.

Well, sexism and racism are often components of fascism. I'm not so sure if Trump is a racist, but he's certainly xenophobic. And he doesn't tick all the boxes for fascism (hence borderline) but plenty enough for it to be concerning.

Let's say that he won't be able to do almost anything he promised and let's say that he blames it on the congress. If his followers are willing to accept that en masse then the step towards authoritarian rule is not so far away.

"That can't happen" - and yet it sometimes does. The US is no special case in that regard.

The likelihood of an authoritarian dictator rising to power in the US is practically nil. Even staunch Republicans wouldn't stand for it because it goes against any idea of freedom. Also anyone, with any kind of clue about the Constitution would immediately be against any kind of authoritarian rule since by definition authoritarianism goes against everything out Constitution stands for.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump won't recognise the one-China policy until Beijing change their trade practices:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...ump-'one-china'-policy-non-negotiable/8183340

He may also abandon sanctions on Russia.

 

[Johnnypenso]

 

[eran0004]

I'm not sure how much you know about the last 4 presidents we've had in the US, but they have done their fair share of polarizing the US in ways their predecessor couldn't have dreamed of. Take Bush the younger, he held the highest approval rating of all time for a president, he also held the lowest approval rating of all time, with a high/low being 90/19. If that doesn't show how a president can polarize the people in America, I'm not sure what will.

Bush's figures are not about polarisation. Polarisation means that you divide the society towards two extremes (they are drawn towards the two poles, and very few remain in the middle).

Bush's figures doesn't show that, they show that he had tremendous support at one point (right after 9/11 I believe) and very low figures at another point, I guess towards the end of his presidency. That illustrates a change in opinion rather than a case of polarisation.

Bush's famous "you're either with us or against us" is a good example of polarisation though, in the area of foreign policy. In a similar way the population is largely either with or against Trump, and the emotions are rather strong on both sides. No president before Trump has faced such strong opposition already before he's been sworn in.

I think you also forget Obama ran on the platform of "Hope and Change", which he did neither. He was supposed to be a different kind of president, but ended up being the same as every other president except for the fact he was at war every single day he was in office.

Obama didn't run on a populist anti-establishment platform, so the similarities ends at "not being able to do what they promised". Obama never claimed that policy is easy and that the shortcomings of the US are because of incompetence and corruption in the political establishment. It feels like I'm saying this for the thousandth time now, but that is what makes Trump unique and that is perhaps the biggest reason why he'll get a tougher time in the office than those before him. Constantly fighting the press and damaging foreign relations with impulsive tweeting won't make it any easier.

The likelihood of an authoritarian dictator rising to power in the US is practically nil. Even staunch Republicans wouldn't stand for it because it goes against any idea of freedom. Also anyone, with any kind of clue about the Constitution would immediately be against any kind of authoritarian rule since by definition authoritarianism goes against everything out Constitution stands for.

If you manage to enrage the population enough, the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that can be torn apart just like that. Germany had a constitution before Hitler, Spain had one before Franco, Italy had one before Mussolini, Iran had one before Khomeini. When radical ideas start to gain traction, things can change quickly. Ultimately it depends on how big support such ideas get from the population and the tricky thing about fascism is that it can seem really tempting if you belong to the big group of people who would benefit (or think that they would benefit) from it.

 

[Tornado]

Man, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and even Khomeini all name dropped in one post? That's gotta be a record.

 

[xyloscissor]

The true fear of all this liberal complaining and fear mongering over Trump is simple to me. He might actually respect our laws and form of government, he might even uphold the constitution. Talk about an earth shattering turn of events

Calling him a fascist is way out of line, you guys should just stick to orange clown.

 

[Joey D]

Bush's figures are not about polarisation. Polarisation means that you divide the society towards two extremes (they are drawn towards the two poles, and very few remain in the middle).

Bush's figures doesn't show that, they show that he had tremendous support at one point (right after 9/11 I believe) and very low figures at another point, I guess towards the end of his presidency. That illustrates a change in opinion rather than a case of polarisation.

Bush's famous "you're either with us or against us" is a good example of polarisation though, in the area of foreign policy. In a similar way the population is largely either with or against Trump, and the emotions are rather strong on both sides. No president before Trump has faced such strong opposition already before he's been sworn in.

How is not about polarization? He went from the most approved president of all time to the least approved. It was a swing from positive to negative and a vast majority of people that supported him stopped doing so based on his actions.

While I agree Trump isn't popular, I think it's largely due to a media portrayal that is less than truthful. He's an ass, that's not even something I think even the most harden Trump supporter could argue, but in terms of not being able to do the job of President, I think people are way to quick to judge someone that hasn't even started the process of governing yet.

Obama didn't run on a populist anti-establishment platform, so the similarities ends at "not being able to do what they promised". Obama never claimed that policy is easy and that the shortcomings of the US are because of incompetence and corruption in the political establishment. It feels like I'm saying this for the thousandth time now, but that is what makes Trump unique and that is perhaps the biggest reason why he'll get a tougher time in the office than those before him. Constantly fighting the press and damaging foreign relations with impulsive tweeting won't make it any easier.

Obama did run on such a platform, and that's why he won. He ran on the platform that he was going to end the wars, not tax the middle class, stop the "revolving door of lobbyist in Washington", and form a single payer health plan. This was something the presidents prior to him weren't promising and Obama failed on every single one of them. This is exactly why so many millennials voted for him, they didn't see him as the same candidate their parents voted for.

Trump isn't unique, he's full of himself and is making promises that he can't keep...just like every other president. Politicians are always going to be the same no matter how "anti-establishment" they claim to be.

If you manage to enrage the population enough, the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that can be torn apart just like that. Germany had a constitution before Hitler, Spain had one before Franco, Italy had one before Mussolini, Iran had one before Khomeini. When radical ideas start to gain traction, things can change quickly. Ultimately it depends on how big support such ideas get from the population and the tricky thing about fascism is that it can seem really tempting if you belong to the big group of people who would benefit (or think that they would benefit) from it.

Unlike those countries, the US has an armed population that isn't afraid to fight oppression if need be. If anyone was going to attempted to form and authoritarian rule over the US, their first thing would be to disarm the population and that will never happen.

 

[xyloscissor]

Unlike those countries, the US has an armed population that isn't afraid to fight oppression if need be. If anyone was going to attempted to form and authoritarian rule over the US, their first thing would be to disarm the population and that will never happen.

If trump starts pushing nonsensical gun control garbage the way Obama and Hillary do I'll eat my hat.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The true fear of all this liberal complaining and fear mongering over Trump is simple to me. He might actually respect our laws and form of government, he might even uphold the constitution. Talk about an earth shattering turn of events

I don't think it's a fear that he will be a great President. I think that it's a fear that he is the worst possible person to be President entering the job at the worst possible time, and that whatever the short-term appeal of his maverick style, there are going to be serious long-term consequences to his Presidency.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So I just learned that for some reason Iran's 70's coup was in the same herald of light as three elected dictators...

Gee that's a new spin on it. Then again so is the idea that Obama didn't see himself so much of an outsider that he was leagues different than any other Democrat they could of put on the Ticket. As well as being vastly different than a War hawk with tendencies to want to fight countries just because that's all he knew, and a religious nut that did more back flips than entire U.S. gymnastics team.

How that isn't anti-establishment is beyond me. The only difference between Obama's message for Change and Hope we can believe in and Trump's make America great again is their pre-presidential back ground. Trump's bold point is he was a Business man before all this, Obama's is that of neo-progressive unestablished outsider.