Quantcast
Locked: Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

Forums - Politics Discussion - Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

Last November,

I supported him and I still do - Americas 91 15.83%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Americas 16 2.78%
 
I supported him and I still do - Europe 37 6.43%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Europe 7 1.22%
 
I supported him and I still do - Asia 6 1.04%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Asia 1 0.17%
 
I supported him and I still do - RoW 14 2.43%
 
I supported him and I now don't - RoW 2 0.35%
 
I didn't support him and still don't. 372 64.70%
 
I didn't support him and now do. 29 5.04%
 
Total:575

libturd

 

-moderated by the-pi-guy

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 26 June 2018

steve

Around the Network
melbye said:
Machiavellian said:

So you do not see any similarities.  Nazi history and Hitler rise in power is very interesting reading.  Have you actually ever read any history books on the subject.

I have and people are finding connections between Nazis and Trump where there are none. To even suggest that what is going on right now with the illegal immigration issue is anything like the Holocaust or concentration-camps is incredibly disgusting

Illegal immigration is not really where the comparisons are made.  The first comparisons was made when Trump selected a group of people as the woes for everyone problems.  One very good tactic is to first find a group people believe are lower than themselves and sell them that their problems stems from that group.  So first we make people south of the border something bigger than the number suggest.  Using language that paint them as murders, criminals, rapist etc.

I personally am not saying comparisons to Trump and Hitler is valid but I can see where parallels can be made.

Also, its not the illegal immigration that is compared to the holocaust concentration camp, its how Trump decided to handle illegal immigration.  By mandating that everyone child be taking from their parents, not having proper facilities to handle the change in policy and no proper way forward for these people to reunite their families is why it is looking bad for Trump.  The other part, I continue to wonder what was the end game.  So making it a felony for illegal immigration, you lock the parents up for how long, afterward what do you do with them, release them back over the border.  Will they keep the children or return them.  If their plight was desperate in the first place, why would they not just come back again.  Either way, it seems he went back to Catch and Release from the Obama administration since its a delicate issue or maybe just better planning is in order.



irstupid said:

Machiavellian said:

I continue to wonder why anyone believe Trump has any competency with monetary issues.  If anything from his business career, you would think that he isn't really good at handling money.  If no US banks will loan you a dime you have to wonder being 50 billion dollar man (so he claims) why no one will touch him.  Then you have President Trump getting all his money from a Bank that is notorious for money laundering.  I kept hearing people say, "He's a billionaire" as if that showed he had any competency in handling money.  One thing you have to give it to Trump that he learned from his dad, never use your own money.  Unfortunately he has a hard time showing that he can be trusted with anyone else money so why entrust him with all of ours.

You do realize that millionaires go broke quite frequently. It kind of has to do with ones nature/thinking to even become a millionaire. I know some and my dad does too and we both have seen how they can have some sort of a missing empathy towards themselves in a way. Like say they put all their money on some stock and it tanks and they lose all their money. Most people would be wallowing in self pity, drinking, suicidal, ect. It doesn't seem to affect them in that way. It's almost like a game to them. They lost that one, on to the next. Some of the millionaires I know have been dead broke half a dozen times, and each time got back to being a millionaire.

They take risks a normal person wouldn't dare take. Those risks can lead to bankruptcy, failed businesses, ect. The safe way of saving money and getting raises, promotions, ect until you become a millionaire is not how the majority of millionaires came to be. They are the rare ones.

Why the hell would yo want a gambler making decisions on the economy.  Think about this for a sec. It's one thing to gamble and if you lose you just file bankruptcy and since you did not use your own money, its not touch, you move on to the next gamble.  Its another to gamble with everyone else livelily hood then if it goes south well, it did not touch your finance, oh well lets try something else. 

Being a Billion or millionaire does not mean he has any insight into how to run macro economics since he has no experience.  If we are to go by the people who left his administration that was giving him advise on macroeconomics, its been stated that he doesn't listen and does not like to take advise.  As he stated he like to do things from the gut.  Why would I want someone who has failed as many times as Trump to be working from his gut if he will not take the time to actually research.



Machiavellian said:
irstupid said:

You do realize that millionaires go broke quite frequently. It kind of has to do with ones nature/thinking to even become a millionaire. I know some and my dad does too and we both have seen how they can have some sort of a missing empathy towards themselves in a way. Like say they put all their money on some stock and it tanks and they lose all their money. Most people would be wallowing in self pity, drinking, suicidal, ect. It doesn't seem to affect them in that way. It's almost like a game to them. They lost that one, on to the next. Some of the millionaires I know have been dead broke half a dozen times, and each time got back to being a millionaire.

They take risks a normal person wouldn't dare take. Those risks can lead to bankruptcy, failed businesses, ect. The safe way of saving money and getting raises, promotions, ect until you become a millionaire is not how the majority of millionaires came to be. They are the rare ones.

Why the hell would yo want a gambler making decisions on the economy.  Think about this for a sec. It's one thing to gamble and if you lose you just file bankruptcy and since you did not use your own money, its not touch, you move on to the next gamble.  Its another to gamble with everyone else livelily hood then if it goes south well, it did not touch your finance, oh well lets try something else. 

Being a Billion or millionaire does not mean he has any insight into how to run macro economics since he has no experience.  If we are to go by the people who left his administration that was giving him advise on macroeconomics, its been stated that he doesn't listen and does not like to take advise.  As he stated he like to do things from the gut.  Why would I want someone who has failed as many times as Trump to be working from his gut if he will not take the time to actually research.

I think you have a misconception about the gambling. This isn't like they are dropping everything on red willy nilly. Their is a lot of thinking and research involved.

But if you go and look at many of the wealthiest and successful people in the world and most all of them have lost big at one time or another due to a venture going bad of some sort.

You say you don't want a billion/millionaire running our economy or government. I say the same damn thing in regards to most politicians who have never had a real job their entire life. Do you really trust these politicians who are somehow millionaires who have never worked a normal job their entire life. They have only ever been a politician. Yet here they are telling me that this or that is not good for me. You have politicians who have bene in office for like 30+ years. They are starting dynasties where when they retire their sons or daughters take their place. Politicians have basically become like a new royalty or mafia. Even the top is ridiculous. You had the Bushes and Clintons. Husband and wife almost presidents. Daughter supposedly taking her moms spot in new York or something I hear. Bushes you have father and son president, and other son was favored for some time to become next chance. I mean how many people expected a Bush vs. Clinton election to happen in 2016.

 I'll take my chances with an Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump or someone who has run multiple businesses in their life, good or bad.

Personally I would really love someone like Mike Rowe. Someone who truly does hang with the common man and has done hundreds of jobs that the everday American does. But no, we will be forever stuck with people who's entire life experiences in the world are from a textbook in their school classes. Never a blister in their life from work, and deeply indebted to the system/state/ect for help on getting elected.



irstupid said:
Machiavellian said:

Why the hell would yo want a gambler making decisions on the economy.  Think about this for a sec. It's one thing to gamble and if you lose you just file bankruptcy and since you did not use your own money, its not touch, you move on to the next gamble.  Its another to gamble with everyone else livelily hood then if it goes south well, it did not touch your finance, oh well lets try something else. 

Being a Billion or millionaire does not mean he has any insight into how to run macro economics since he has no experience.  If we are to go by the people who left his administration that was giving him advise on macroeconomics, its been stated that he doesn't listen and does not like to take advise.  As he stated he like to do things from the gut.  Why would I want someone who has failed as many times as Trump to be working from his gut if he will not take the time to actually research.

I think you have a misconception about the gambling. This isn't like they are dropping everything on red willy nilly. Their is a lot of thinking and research involved.

But if you go and look at many of the wealthiest and successful people in the world and most all of them have lost big at one time or another due to a venture going bad of some sort.

You say you don't want a billion/millionaire running our economy or government. I say the same damn thing in regards to most politicians who have never had a real job their entire life. Do you really trust these politicians who are somehow millionaires who have never worked a normal job their entire life. They have only ever been a politician. Yet here they are telling me that this or that is not good for me. You have politicians who have bene in office for like 30+ years. They are starting dynasties where when they retire their sons or daughters take their place. Politicians have basically become like a new royalty or mafia. Even the top is ridiculous. You had the Bushes and Clintons. Husband and wife almost presidents. Daughter supposedly taking her moms spot in new York or something I hear. Bushes you have father and son president, and other son was favored for some time to become next chance. I mean how many people expected a Bush vs. Clinton election to happen in 2016.

 I'll take my chances with an Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump or someone who has run multiple businesses in their life, good or bad.

Personally I would really love someone like Mike Rowe. Someone who truly does hang with the common man and has done hundreds of jobs that the everday American does. But no, we will be forever stuck with people who's entire life experiences in the world are from a textbook in their school classes. Never a blister in their life from work, and deeply indebted to the system/state/ect for help on getting elected.

I have no misconception about the gambling.  I understand full well, when you gamble with other people money you can be as risky as you can because if you are wrong, the only thing you effect is that business.  If you read about the Bankruptcies that Trump went through most of them were part of mismanagement which as the head of those businesses he is responsible for.  With each of his properties that went belly up, they bleed money,  he mismanaged funds all the while he  drew a fact check until he had to file Chapter 11 and give up that business to his creditors.  Its one thing to do it maybe twice and learned from those situations but 5 times, come on.  Why would this instill any kind of confidence in Trump ability to manage when he continued to do the same trick over and over again.  Also it would be different if he came from modest funds or even the bottom and built a empire, but inheriting daddy money and pretty much Fing it up doesn't make you confident on his management abilities.

One of the big problems and we see this every day with Trump is that the economy is not like a business.  The forces that effect macroeconomics are totally different and they do not always translate the same in both spaces.  Case in point would be when Trump kept talking about killing NAFTA without fully understanding the businesses that are affected by this trade agreement.  Not only did he not understand, but he didn't understand how his very words and tweets caused insecurity in the market causing buyers to start seeking other sellers instead of the US.  These are long standing contracts that once gone probably will never come back but he wouldn't shut up until people got together and explained to him like a child the turmoil he was causing.  Next he goes into meetings without full knowledge.  One example he kept telling the Canadian prime minister that we had a trade deficit with them all the while the Canadian Prime minister kept telling him he was wrong.  Somebody again had to sit him down and explained the situation which was his job in the first place to understand before going into meetings and talks trying to renegotiate looking ignorant.  There are way to many examples where Trump goes into meetings and conversations with world leaders unprepared, then he open his mouth and everyone knows he has no clue what he is talking about until someone has to lecture him like he is a child.

Elon Musk and Mark Cuban I probably can get behind but Trump was never a person I would put into that list. Just like a doctor, I want the top student not the C student and so far there isn't anything Trump has shone me that elevate him above a C.   



Around the Network

I predict a fallout now that Churches have found out that they will be taxed. Trump has lasted through a lot with his base but now he and the Republican are messing with their money. All hell is about to break loose.



Machiavellian said:
Smartie900 said:
I still find it unbelievable that the creation of a 'Space Force' seems to be an idea that is supported by many. While the Outer Space Treaty signed by the UN doesn't specifically bar humans from militarizing space; it should be clear that the idea of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a useless branch of a military is illogical. I was cautiously optimistic about Trump's capability to handle monetary issues with some level of competency, but I was clearly mistaken.

I continue to wonder why anyone believe Trump has any competency with monetary issues.  If anything from his business career, you would think that he isn't really good at handling money.  If no US banks will loan you a dime you have to wonder being 50 billion dollar man (so he claims) why no one will touch him.  Then you have President Trump getting all his money from a Bank that is notorious for money laundering.  I kept hearing people say, "He's a billionaire" as if that showed he had any competency in handling money.  One thing you have to give it to Trump that he learned from his dad, never use your own money.  Unfortunately he has a hard time showing that he can be trusted with anyone else money so why entrust him with all of ours.

I was unfortunately naïve around the time of the election and thought that his status as a successful businessman, despite his 4 bankrupt businesses would provide enough credence to stabilizing the national debt and reserving federal funds for appropriate functions. I wish I would have been more attentive to his background rather than relying on false faith.



 

 

irstupid said:
Final-Fan said:

The really interesting thing is that people can be relatively close on certain principles but still see underlying facts so differently that they are nearly on diametrically opposed positions.  My position is that before a certain level of development the fetus is not a "person", which is why it is not wrong to kill it.  Once it is a person (or once there is a reasonable likelihood of personhood) then it is wrong to kill it.  Your position is that personhood begins at conception (unless I'm wrong about that—correct me if I am).  So right there we stand on opposite sides of the abortion issue even though we both agree it's generally wrong to kill a "person". 

Beyond that I'd say that there is more gray area to late-term abortion that you seem to be admitting to.  Like, if the fetus only has a 25% chance to live and a 75% chance that letting it come to term will kill the woman, I would say that the woman has the right to choose to defend her own life against the "attacking" fetus, assuming that there isn't a way to remove the fetus non-lethally.  Please let me know if we actually agree on this too!  But where do we draw the line on the "likelihood of fetus living" vs. "likelihood of woman dying"?  It's murky territory. 

I know I'm butting in, but I'm also against abortion. It gets tricky in regards to rape victims, cause even though I would like to say "just give it up for adoption" as many people in the US want to adopt and maybe that would result in adoption not costing a years salary. But I can see the defense of forcing a woman to carry that to term could be tramatizing.

As for everyone else.

1. At conception is a bit lisleading. By the time someone knows they are pregnant they are a bit further along than the day after that you make conception sound like

2. I see a child whether in the womb or in a baby stroller as a life and I just can't murder it. Feels wrong on a personal level. You can't change that thinking, and I'm betting its the same for others.

Smartie900 said:
I still find it unbelievable that the creation of a 'Space Force' seems to be an idea that is supported by many. While the Outer Space Treaty signed by the UN doesn't specifically bar humans from militarizing space; it should be clear that the idea of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a useless branch of a military is illogical. I was cautiously optimistic about Trump's capability to handle monetary issues with some level of competency, but I was clearly mistaken.

A military space force is a big win in my book solely because I feel the best inventions/innovations/ect happen due to military funding. Is this space force going to win the space war against a china/Russia space force or against aliens? IDK, can't predict future, but the thought of it makes me laugh as it being ridiculous. But could this space force vastly improve our space tech which could not only improve our life on earth but lead to the advancement of things that put us closer to our beloved scifi fantasy stuff like Star Wars/Trek/ect.  That I hope and do believe it will.

Don't worry, I was butting in too. 

The "at conception" point was because I was making a bit of a presumption that Dulfite's objections were religiously based.  I sort of think I remember that this was his position but I recognized that I could be confusing him with someone else and just took the chance.  If I was wrong, sorry Dulfite!  But I have never seen an argument against early term abortion that made any sense to me that wasn't based on religious conviction that personhood was conferred on the fetus before there was any scientific reason to do so IMO (e.g. a six week old embryo that has barely begun to form a brain). 

The emotional arguments you cite do not persuade me that it's reasonable to legally prohibit a woman from having an abortion when forcing them to carry to term has such consequences for them.  But that's not to say that the emotional response isn't a reason for you to act on it in your personal life or try to persuade others to act in the way you feel is right. 

On the subject of having the military throw hundreds of billions of dollars at a space force just to realize the beneficial side effects that can be expected to result (like happened with the Apollo program, space shuttle program, etc.) I really don't see the point in not just throwing the same money directly at pure science research and development or civilian space efforts.  If your position is, "those aren't going to happen so I'll take what I can get," well, I can't really argue with that except to say that I don't think the space force is happening either. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Machiavellian said:
I predict a fallout now that Churches have found out that they will be taxed. Trump has lasted through a lot with his base but now he and the Republican are messing with their money. All hell is about to break loose.

It was bound to happen. Trump never was a Christian conservative and never tried to be. In reality, he's a New York Democrat who's into every vice you could imagine maybe with the exception of drinking and doing drugs. He's banged porn stars and supermodels just so he can say he did. In fact, I would argue that his decision to run as a Republican probably came down to a coin toss. As for the Republicans, the religious right sect of the party who helped get Reagan elected are starting to die off. Younger Republicans, or the New Right as many are calling them tend to be not only more libertarian-leaning (though in some cases not libertarian enough to be a Libertarian) but also tend to be far less religious than previous generations of Republicans. Some of them may even be atheists or pagans. This action might hurt the Republicans in the short run but in the long run, the Republicans aren't going to need the religious vote like they used to.

The funny thing about this is you're gonna see a lot of Democrats who have suddenly found Jesus overnight. Apparently, he was hiding behind the stacks of bribe money in the closet. Who would have known. 



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Trump is incompetent when it comes to doing his job. But he's anti-intellectual.
So perfect for his voter base, who are these people...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Ydoh_5EjU



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.