President Trump's Job Approval Continues To Climb As Democrats Try To Derail The Country

[MementoMori_]

President Trump's Job Approval rating is now at the highest it has been since a few weeks after he took office. And the pace of the increase has been accelerating.

The more the Democrats take a negative path, launching one phony investigation after another with nothing but dry holes to show for it, the more Americans are asking themselves how this helps the country. The Democrats are digging their own political grave and there is no sign that they will ever get it.

Things couldn't be better for President Trump and his pro-American agenda or worse for those who want to see America collapse. America is back thanks to President Trump, and we are stronger than ever.

[goaded]

A couple of weeks ago you were crowing over his 52% approval rating (an outlier value from an predictably right-leaning poll). Now you put up a picture of 44.4%, as if that is better?

"Tuesday, March 05, 2019

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 48% of Likely U. S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove. "

President Trump's Popularity Numbers Soar! Now Higher Than They Were When He Won The Election! ↗

[MementoMori_]

Right and when I cited the 52% poll the criticism from your ilk was that it was "just one biased poll."

Now I post the average of all the major polls and you don't like that either.

Then you go and post the results of another single poll which is what you complained about when I did it.

We get the game my friend. You've already lost it. President Trump had your belt off and your pants down and you never even saw it coming. He's about 100 years ahead of you.

[goaded]

I quoted the poll you previously posted as proof he was doing so well, and this post simply shows we were right that his numbers weren't above 50%. I can't find the page you screenshot, so...

From RCP today (https://www. realclearpolitics. com/epolls/latest_polls/ March 5th):

President Trump Job Approval Quinnipiac Approve 38, Disapprove 55 Disapprove +17
President Trump Job Approval Gallup Approve 43, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +11
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 48, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +3
President Trump Job Approval IBD/TIPP Approve 41, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +12
Direction of Country IBD/TIPP Right Direction 46, Wrong Track 53 Wrong Track +7

Also, projects.fivethirtyeight.com/.../ 41.9% approve to 53.3% disapprove.

[goaded]

Thanks for mho :)
The problem is, you don't need a majority of votes to become president in the US. He may well get re-elected.

[Paige90]

I just want Hillary to go to prison for the rest of her miserable life!

[MementoMori_]

LOCK HER UP!

[humanearth]

Thumbs up (#MeTo)

[loveslongnails]

Lock him up.. which will happen after he's impeached.

[MementoMori_]

[Poormanscomedian]

wow sexy and smart

[nightdrot]

Not sure of the point. By any historical standard, Mr. Trump's approval ratings are nothing to rave about.

For comparative purposes, by this point in his term, Mr. Reagan's job approval rating - this coming out of the brutal 1980-1982 "double dip" recession in which unemployment hit 10.8% - stood at 47% and would peek in 1986 at 71%. (This not counting spikes after the assassination attempt - 83% - and the successful Grenada invasion - 81%. Also Mr. Reagan's re-election number - just shy of 60%.)

Set against those numbers - and throw in that Mr. Trump has a thriving economy in contrast to what Mr. Reagan was facing at the equivalent point in his term - and the current President's numbers are, at best, mediocre.

Truth in advertising, I am a Republican who has little time for Mr. Trump and who did not vote for him. That said, the historical record is what it is.

Mr. Trump has done neither so poorly as his critics would have it, nor so well as his advocates - not least the President himself - suggest. As Commander-in-Chief, he has largely been untested.

As Head of Government, he has been slipshod and disorganized. Failing to fill various key posts in his Administration, stepping on his own message and at cross purposes with his Cabinet and staff, and ranking near the bottom - only ahead of George H. W. Bush, Carter and Ford - in terms of his ability to get legislation through Congress.

As Head of State, he has been the anti-Reagan. Mr. Trump's gift for rubbing salt in the social wounds is the exact opposite of Mr. Reagan's approach. The latter brought to his presidency and sunny optimism and patriotism that calmed a country coming out of the upheaval of the 60s and 70s.

Suffice to say, Mr. Triump's approach, whatever catharsis it gives to his strongest backers, has worked to the President's disadvantage. It has lowered his approval ratings and provoked a reaction to his policies that is wildly disproportionate.

In this way alone, perhaps, the President has been fortunate in his opponents. By being such a controversial figure, Mr. Trump has made himself the issue and the Democrats in Congress, as a result, have not really established their own identity nor policy agenda.

Indeed, at the moment, the Democratic party is a train wreck. When your party is identified with blackface, sexual harassment, anti-Semitism, "dark money" corruption (see also Rep. Ocasio-Cortez) and the abolition of flatulent cows, you have, to say no more, a problem.

Indeed, the Democratic party has become little more than a circular firing squad, so badly divided that it has lost routine legislative motions in Congress more times in one month than the GOP lost in its eight years in the majority. It is that, as much as anything else, that may explain the President's rising approval ratings - such as they are.

To be sure, seen in one way, Trump's ratings are remarkable. That a President with such a knack for rubbing salt in the social wounds, who often speaks crudely and without seemingly much effort to measure his words, their truthfulness and their impact is as popular as he is - which to be sure is only about 45% approval - is pretty impressive actually.

By all rights, President Trump should be about where Nixon was during the Watergate scandal or where Johnson was at the height of the Vietnam War or Carter at the point of double digit inflation and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to cite three contemporary examples. That he is at 45% then must be seen as something of an accomplishment.

By the same token, the economy is growing at its fastest rate since the 1980s. Inflation is low and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since the 1960s. Indeed, unemployment for women, Hispanics and African-Americans is at the lowest levels since records for those demographics began being kept by the Labor Department.

That the President has these favorable conditions and yet can barely reach the ratings of Mr. Reagan at his low point is telling.

[MementoMori_]

"Not sure of the point. "

The point is that while socialists, communists and fake Republicans do their best to destroy the president and thus their own country, his numbers keep going up.

By the way, one of my parents worked in the White House with President Reagan.

[nightdrot]

On the latter point, that's neat. I am actually a former Congressional staffer and current political consultant and a great admirer of Mr. Reagan. I started in DC in 1988 and got the chance to meet him before he left office.

As to the former point, there are far fewer socialists out there than people who call themselves socialists. Ditto Communists. Suffice to say, I doubt that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has ever read a page of Marx.

As to fake Republicans, leaving aside that I would be inclined to ask which kind of Republican you mean. Our parties are not ideological monoliths as you see in Europe, but are rather coalitions of various demographic, religious, ethnic, ideological, income, regional and other groups that have come together in part by common interest and in part by historical accident.

Thus, you get a GOP that runs the gamut from Susan Collins to Rand Paul to Ted Cruz. (Similarly a Democratic party that runs from Elizabeth Warren to Sherrod Brown to Joe Manchin.)

In any case, Mr. Trump has absolutely run roughshod - in his consummate populism - over much that Mr. Reagan held dear. Free trade, the alliance of the Free World, etc. Similarly, he opposed entitlement reform.

On all this I neither say "yea" nor "nay." Some of these positions have their merits. However, it begs the question of who the real fake Republican might be. This is more complicated than you seem to imagine - and Mr. Trump does not necessarily come out the better for the comparison.

[MementoMori_]

Let me answer your question with a question.

How will it help the Republican party if President Trump doesn't succeed and isn't reelected?

[nightdrot]

Well, let m respond with a question - Is that the paramount question? Party over country.

While I do not find Mr. Trump to be as odious as the emotional reactions to him, he has, on the whole, not added to the nation's collective sense of stability and harmony. In this, as I noted elsewhere, he is in the starkest contrast to President Reagan.

Moreover, it is true that Mr. Trump won - on a minority of the popular vote - and did so by taking lower middle class and blue collar workers that had previously been the heart of the Democrat's old New Deal-Fair Deal coalition. However, that is a wasting asset.

That group is in demographic decline relative to the population and if the GOP reaches the conclusion that the pathway to a majority is to replicate the Trump coalition - much as the Democrats are trying to replicate the Obama coalition - they are apt to find that it will not end well. In that, it may be a case of short term pain for long term gain.

[MementoMori_]

The paramount question is what are the chances that the policies you want will be implemented if the Democrats defeat President Trump? You can cling to perfection of your ideology all the way to the political grave, or you can get behind what is dooable and realistic and preserve the possibility of positive movement in your favor. i. e. "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."

[nightdrot]

Except that President Trump is not giving me the policies that I want either.

His handling of foreign policy has been chaotic and undisciplined - with troops out of Syria one moment, in the next, to cite but one example. His handling of North Korea has been to personalize where the national interest should be paramount.

In domestic policy, his accomplishments have been derivative. Unlike President Reagan, who inherited an economy in crisis, Mr. Trump had an economy that was growing, albeit at subpar rates. (Even then, President Trump's accomplishment has been relative. Growth on his watch has reached 3.1%. Under Mr. Reagan, an absolutely eye popping 7.6%.)

In terms of the culture, as noted already, Mr. Trump is as apt to aggravate the situation as to improve it. To which his added his cavalier approach to the established institutions of government and society.

That may be cathartic to his supporters, but in the long run will be disastrous. As Disraeli said long ago, "A nation's liberties are embodied in its institutions. The march of intellect is not enough."

Far from being the ideologue, I am taking into account the practical implications of Mr. Trump's approach to governing. Recognizing that simply because he sports the GOP banner, it does not follow, particularly given the nature of our parties, that he is a Republican as that has been conventionally understood.

In that connection, then, I prefer not to encourage the transformation of my party into something that it ought not be. That way will assure that I never get the policies I prefer.

Besides, I tend not to view politics in such apocalyptic terms. We have had Democratic presidents before and the nation has survived - and indeed even prospered. I may not agree with all their policies, but I will tolerate them rather than see my party become something it ought not be.

[nightdrot]

Just as an aside, it is also not clear to me how different Mr. Trump is from his two immediate Democratic predecessors.

An inability to consistently tell the truth. A bad habit of not being able to keep his pants on around women not his wife. An array of allies and acquaintances of somewhat dubious reputation, and a penchant for petty scandals.

Mr. Trump resembles no one so much as the husband of the woman he defeated to become President. Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, meet Donald Trump. The thing that puzzles me then is how those who reached a fine pitch of passion over Mr. Clinton yawn languidly over Mr. Trump.

Republicans who hoist their colors on character should take care. As C. S. Lewis said, "We laugh at honor and then are shocked to find traitors in our midst."

As to Mr. Trump's aforementioned gift for pouring salt in the social wounds, he has much in common with Mr. Obama. As none other than liberal MSNBC commentator and former Tip O'Neil staffer Chris Matthews has noted, Mr. Obama lacked the gift for bringing people together.

Hence his abysmal record getting legislation through Congress - notwithstanding large Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress - and his lack of any real allies on the Hill. Mr. Obama's style was condescending where Mr. Trump's is bombastic, but in the end they come out in about the same place and both experienced a fair amount of social upheaval on their respective watches. (Though I cut Mr. Trump some slack insofar as his record is ongoing. Things could change - though it is doubtful.)

The bottom line is that you have made governing too easy. Press the right buttons on the policy front and good enough. In practice, it is far more difficult than that - which is why for all the prosperity on Mr. Trump's watch, the national mood remains so sullen.

[MementoMori_]

It really boils down to one question. Would you prefer seeing the Democrats take the White House and possibly the Senate and pass virtually everything they want, to President Trump being reelected? If not, I contend you MUST support president Trump.

If you don't, that may very well be what happens. What are you going to have to say if it does? You can be sure that it will be a catastrophe for the Republicans as a good number of them will be infuriated that the White House (and the country) was handed to the socialists due to lack of commitment to support the only candidate that can prevent it. I know because I will be one of them. It could very well split the party.

The Democrats are no longer the party of JFK, or even Bill Clinton. They have taken a hard turn to the left. Just look what is going on! To allow them to regain power at this point, to continue Obama's assault on liberty, by failing to support the only candidate that can stop them, is to my mind not sane. I use a harsh word because I believe there would be harsh consequences for Republicans and conservatives if this should come to pass.

[nightdrot]

You are presuming to know things you cannot know.

Supposedly the Republicans, with the election of Mr. Trump, were taking a hard turn to the right. Yet they could not even agree to repeal Obamacare - an issue that they had been running on for 8 years. For that matter, Mr. Trump barely lifted a finger to push the Congress to repeal it.

To wit, they repealed the least popular part of Obamacare - the mandate - and now it is the most popular it has ever been. It being a given that the American public has a ferocious appetite for government, it just has a negligible willingness to pay for it.

Moreover, at this stage, it is unclear what the Democrats are - other than divided. They, at the moment, are the party of infanticide, blackface, sexual harassment, anti-Semitism and - pace the foibles of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez - "dark money" corruption scandals. Indeed, so divided is the party, that it could not agree to condemn anti-Semitism, and so it took a tough stand against hatred.

Besides, if we have learned nothing from Mr. Trump, it is that a common hatred is more apt to unite a party than any agreement on the issues. If Mr. Trump were to lose, the GOP would - as the Democrats are now, and as the GOP has done in the past - unite in opposition to the new President, perhaps after a period of division.

Disraeli said that "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." To suggest that the defeat of Mr. Trump will lead to permanent dissolution of the party or whatever is counterintuitive at best.

Indeed, you may not recall that the predictions were that if Reagan won in 1980, the result would be economic chaos and nuclear war. Suffice to say, things turned out a wee bit better than that.

Much will depend on who captures the Democratic nomination, and much will depend on the nature of Mr. Trump's defeat should he lose. That said, while I generally am a Republican, I do not assume the end times were we - as we have before - to lose and election.

[MementoMori_]

"Indeed, you may not recall that the predictions were that if Reagan won in 1980, the result would be economic chaos and nuclear war."

Precisely the same prediction that was made about Trump, by both Democrats and Republicans. So far neither has come to pass. But socialism is an entirely different animal.

You cannot tell me with a straight face that the likes of the field of candidates such as the Democrats are now marshaling, each one vying to outdo the others on who can be the more authentic Marxist, has ever before been seen in American politics.

The parties don't hate President Trump because they disagree with his policies. They hate him because he isn't an insider and runs roughshod over their corrupt interests. They consider him a bull in a China shop not because he is reckless. It's because it's their china shop and they don't want it disturbed.

You can call it reckless or you can call it disruptive. In fact disruptive is exactly what we need. There is no other way that the insoluble problems that no president before him has been able to make any progress on can be solved. We NEED a disrupter not the status quo.

President Trump was saddled with a dozen insoluble issues. On most of them he was handed the ball on his own teams 1 yard line with 10 seconds left on the game clock. If he can fix ANY of them he will be one of the great presidents in American history.

Those Republicans who do not back him will come to regret it if he loses the 2020 election. I think you vastly underestimate the consequences of such a loss.

[MementoMori_]

I remind you that if the Democrats had not rigged their own primary election, Bernie Sanders may have already been president. Pernicious socialism was that close.

[nightdrot]

First of all, the welfare state ain't socialism. I'll spare you the whole taxonomy of political philosophy, other than to say that whatever these folks may call themselves, they ain't socialists. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production with a centrally planned economy. Whatever the likes of Sanders and AOC think they are offering, they are not offering that.

Secondly, I agree, what drives most of these folks is dislike of Trump because he is Trump. Which is what makes it less likely that they would get their agenda through.

First, when Reagan ran, he ran on a specific agenda. When he won, he was able to say that he had offered certain ideas and the public - including 111 districts otherwise carried by Democrats - had consented to it. Those Members of Congress voted accordingly.

By contrast, all these folks will be able to offer is that they are not Trump. They will have no mandate for their ideas and therefore - as we see in the Democratic party at the moment - when it comes to voting on legislation, the votes are not apt to be there.

This does not mean you will not get a vote for, say, Medicare for all, for example. However, that is a cost/benefit question and, as the population ages and as the kids don't want to pay out of pocket for mom and dad, the day may come when that is inevitable. As I say, the public loves government, it just does not like paying for it.

Even then, follow the polls right now. Medicare for all draws about 57%. Phrase the question in a way though that Medicare for all would cause the abolition of private insurance and require a tax increase and support drops to 12%. (See Rasmussen and Quinnipiac.) Any Member of Congress who wants to ignore that please signify by saying "I do not choose to run again."

Beyond all that, there is the simple fact of numbers. Nothing gets done in the Senate less 60 votes. The Democrats are not apt to get that unless Mr. Trump truly implodes.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

However, if Mr. Trump truly implodes, that will mean that he has lost the support of a sizeable portion of his base. That would likely not be without cause.

Elections have consequences. If Mr. Trump is that bad that he loses more of the minority of the vote that got him elected to begin with, that would be saying something.

In any case, Mr. Trump has stayed at roughly a solid 45% of the vote in opinion polls without much change. That is a thin margin on which to advance an agenda, which is why he ranks - according to a study by CQ - toward the bottom of post-FDR presidents in terms of getting legislation through Congress. (Just behind Obama, ahead of Bush I, Carter and, at dead last, Ford.)

Finally, your first point makes my last. The predictions among the partisans were when Reagan was elected that fire and brimstone would follow. It didn't. Life went on.

All life is practiced on a slippery slope and all things tend toward entropy, but in any given event, the worst rarely happens. Were Mr. Trump to be defeated, we would be rid of a man who has poisoned an already very toxic social well.

However, insofar as Mr. Trump is symptom and not cause, it is not likely that any new President would have a mandate to be anything other than not Trump. To wit, the worst policy and legislation would not likely follow.

As it is, the moment for Reagan came not only when a society in much cultural turmoil was further aggravated by economic chaos. He offered what was, at the time, a radical policy approach married to an emolient personality.

(This was brilliantly captured in a cartoon at the time. The first panel showed a pollster asking a voter, "What do you think of Reagan's policies?" The reply: "#@*!!" Next panel: "What do you think of Reagan personally?" The voter replies: "Oh, great guy! Really like him! Friendly. Affable.")

CONT.

[nightdrot]

In Reagan, the man and the moment met. His policies transformed the economy. His personality began to smooth ruffled feathers. Partly it was because the country was ready to calm down. However, it was an interactive process. The country was ready to calm down, and Reagan helped to calm it in a virtuous cycle.

Suffice to say, right now, while the nation is in a culturally bad mood, the economy is humming along. Thus, you are not apt to get a mandate for the kinds of radical policy changes that the likes of AOC have placed on offer. The Congress will vote accordingly.

That said, beware. Politics is downstream of culture. The rancid tone of our politics will, sooner or later, spill into the performance of the economy. (As it did in the 70s.) When that moment comes, it will not be pretty.

So, the GOP can continue to push a man who, as I say, rubs salt in the social wounds - and the result will apt to be a mandate for policies the opposite of what they intend and which neither of us would likely find congenial.

(Though I would add that you and I probably have some policy differences. What you call conservatism, historically speaking, is not and often, therefore produces outcomes the opposite of which it intends. That, however, is a different topic for a different day.)

Bottom line, losing Mr. Trump would not be an entirely pleasant affair, but it may stave off worse in the future. Certainly, had Mrs. Clinton won, it would have put a lid on some of the more radical instincts you currently see in the Democratic party.

As it is, among the Democrat's funders and activists, they have convinced themselves that she lost because the nation wants more radical policies. The polling does not support that, but now our politics is more polarized.

You place more emphasis on Mr. Trump than is warranted. His policies are derivative, his tone destructive. Moreover, I do no mean to offend, you analysis is superficial and partisan. You might wish to get some historic perspective.

[MementoMori_]

I must shake my head and laugh a little (in a disappointed way). If your faction of the Republican party was merely an outside observer, things would be different. But to talk about the possibility of President Trump's potential political "implosion," as if it would be a bad thing, when in fact it is Republicans such as yourself whose opposition and lack of cooperation is the biggest reason such an implosion may take place seems disingenuous and foolish to me. I would say that I am also a big Reagan fan, but of course you would not believe it since you cannot see how I can reconcile that with my support for President Trump. Thanks for the conversation. I'll give you the last word if you want it. God bless America.

[nightdrot]

The difference is that my party should be in service to my principles. For you, your principles are in service to your party. I cannot, as a matter of principle, sublet my philosophy in that way.

Indeed, given the nature of America's parties - they are coalitions and not ideological monoliths - you end up committed to whatever faction is the dominant one of the hour. There is that line from a British play - "I'm a man of no convictions. At least I think I am."

That is where you, in the pursuit of principle, ironically end up.

[nightdrot]

By the way, for all that, I did enjoy the exchange. Best to you.

[MementoMori_]

Bet to you too. Come back and continue the discussion if Trump loses the election. ;-)

[loveslongnails]

Any man who can support the diarrhea that falls from Trump's face on a daily basis, along with the outright lies he tells, ON A DAILY BASIS, while being a well documented cheat, defrauder, and wait... oh yes, paying off hookers to be silent... any man who supports this kind of man... isn't worth his salt. At the age of 23, you are the most "duped" youngsters I've ever heard. You fall for every piece of spin and bullshit that comes from him, and you revel in it, without facts to back you up. You site polls from the Heritage Foundation, or Breitbart, and think they are gospel? When Bush left the country in shambles, and Cheney raped the coffers of the USA, you were still sucking on a bottle, yet you claim to know what happened. Obama walked into a mine field and was far from perfect, but did well considering he faced the same "hatred" that you accuse Trump haters of slinging. The difference is, Trump deserves it - every bit of it. And more over, you're too ignorant to understand -- you're too poor to matter to him!! He doesn't know you exist, but as long as you regurgitate his nonsense, you have a use to him and his "party". If for NO OTHER reason, you and the millions of others who willingly LOOK the other way when your President tells thousands of outright LIES, are not qualified to speak about much of anything he does, nor can you be taken seriously.

[Poormanscomedian]

None of the charges have been proven , more rumors made out to be fact. Hookers in England has already been proven a lie

[loveslongnails]

@Poormanscomedian Trump lies are rumors? LMFAO... hookers in England? Who cares? We've got thousands upon thousands of other documented bullshit right here. Don't waste my time.

[NineBreaker]

I have a general dislike of politicians, and Trump is the biggest one right now. I am glad there's job growth and I'll give his administration the credit. However, I still think he's an uninhibited malignant narcissist who lacks any sense of shame or empathy.

[kingofthellamas]

There is something known as economic lag which is just the amount of time it takes the impact of what business do in response to government policy to be felt by the people in the street and captured in data. That's a detailed way of saying that any positive impact on the US economy will be much more to do with the last administration than this. But sure, trump will take credit and plenty of people won't see how he could be lying to you.

[NineBreaker]

I can accept that. Which also means that we'll still be feeling the effects of a Trump presidency.

[kingofthellamas]

I feel that you have not understood my point

[NineBreaker]

I think I did, and I agree with you.

[MementoMori_]

"There is something known as economic lag which is just the amount of time it takes the impact of what business do in response to government policy to be felt by the people in the street and captured in data. That's a detailed way of saying that any positive impact on the US economy will be much more to do with the last administration than this. But sure, trump will take credit and plenty of people won't see how he could be lying to you. "

So you're saying that for 8 years Obama wrongfully took credit for what Bush did? Gee wiz. Why weren't you socialists gushing this brilliant economic revelation back then?

[MementoMori_]

@kingofthellamas

Have to give you credit for calling Obama out as a liar for 8 years.

[kingofthellamas]

The lag applies to about a 2/3 year time frame. Not trump or Obama's entire presidency.

[MementoMori_]

RIIIIIIIGHT

Like you'll be saying that a year from now when the Trump economy is booming.

You people are so full of it. No one falls for this game anymore.

[kingofthellamas]

The economy will be booming or it won't be. I can't speak louder than the numbers. I just try to understand the mechanics being them.

The second term is always a good measure of a president imho. There's no more economic lag stuff plus as the president can not have a third term anyway they tend to act without fear.

[Anonymous]

I like how every president in living history broke over 60% approval ratings and no one thought it was a big deal or even an accomplishment

Trumps approval has never made it even to 50% and his fanbase act like he's the most popular dude ever.(Besides when they talk like all of media and the world is out to get him. I'm curious trumpanzee's how is the entire world out to get him if you also think he's incredibly popular and liked by the world?)

[dy8alexUk]

President Donald Trump is best President USA has ever had he cares about people and for people to be in work. Democrats want to make money for them selves and friends, a sellfish outlook. President Trump will make USA great again.

[Poormanscomedian]

I am a Trump supporter , one of the few that says that not using anon, and I still say Reagan was best ever.

[Paris13]

Trump ain't No Losing!!! Dems Continue Snoozing!!!
THEY LOSING NEXT YEAR, DEAR!!! xxoo

[Curmudgeon]

But can we take back Congress--this time with REAL Republicans and not globalist pussies--in the face of massive voter fraud?

[Poormanscomedian]

Not only does Trump stay in Oval Office (Oral Office if liked Clinton), but Republicans take back the House and they increase their number in the Senate.

Get your popcorn ready because the Democratic debates are going to be entertaining. It will be I will give you FREE college , the other will offer Free College and books, then another Free college , books, and a car. By the time we are done , You will be getting free college, books, car, phone, cash allowance, house , hookers, beer, pot, and toilet paper.

[MementoMori_]

The Democrats are going to try to outdo each other to prove who would be the better socialist.

Everyone gets everything free and no one has to work if they don't want to. Do the math!

[SketchForger]

That's good from him.

It's too bad his supporters don't understand the meaning of economic lag.

But what do I know, I'm just a silly Democrat who's trying to "derail the country" by keeping myself informed on how the wall he's attempting to build is going to leave a bigger dent in our debt than our immigration problem EVER could.

[MementoMori_]

Where was your "theory of economic lag" when Obama was president and taking credit for all of Bush's economic gains? Bigger dent in debt? How could it be any bigger than Obama who added more to the national debt than every other president before him COMBINED?

[SketchForger]

Where was I you ask?

7th - 8th grade.

[MementoMori_]

Obama was president until January of 2017. If you are 20 now then you were about 18 then. Says something about your intellectual capabilities that you were in the 7th or 8th grade at 18 years old. So not only is your historical and economic knowledge severely lacking, apparently your mathematical abilities are equally as poor.

[SketchForger]

I guess I have to have opinions about a president when they leave apparently, not when they are elected? Which was about 10 years ago Rick Sanchez.

[MementoMori_]

I'm not the one who cited the "theory of economic lag" to try to minimize President Trump's accomplishments. Nor am I the one who accused him of attempting to add significant amounts to the US debt. You are. In fact building the wall ads virtually NOTHING to the US debt. The president is asked for $5.7 billion, that's 2 hundreths of one percent of the national debt. It's pocket change. The Democrats spent more than that already on opposing the wall. And Obama mushroomed the debt by SIXTEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN TIMES that amount.

So this whole debt argument about the wall is a gigantic fraud. And the "theory of economic" lag as a criticism of President Trump is a hypocritical double standard that ignores the fact that the Democrats measured by the same standard over the last decade did far worse than President Trump is doing.

[SketchForger]

You imply that Trump is actually doing anything.

[John_Doesnt]

According to Fox news, not a reliable source. %53.4 still disapprove and his approval rating is at %41.
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/.../

[Izumiblu]

Conservatives tend to overstate And overvalue Trumps approval rating. I can’t even begin to name the number of times his approval rating was said to be trending up or at a new high then you go look and it’s just as shitty as you might have expected

[MementoMori_]

Is that why he won the election?

[Izumiblu]

Well it seems pretty obvious he won because he won the electoral college. It was also pretty clear that he list the popular vote to one of the worst presidential candidates in history under a democratic strategy formulated by the keystone cops.

[Izumiblu]

*lost

[MementoMori_]

Oh I see. So Hillary Clinton won the game that wasn't played.

Winning the presidency requires winning the electoral college vote not the popular vote. President Trump brilliantly played to win the game that counts not the game that doesn't count. If the game involved winning the popular vote, he would have played that game and won it too.

You socialists must be as tired of making up excuses for being losers as everyone else is of hearing them.

[Izumiblu]

Ok let’s lay this out one by one.

First, as I pointed out to begin with... and I’m quoting myself directly “he won because he won the electoral college”. So you trying to clarify that he won because he won the electoral college seems kind of silly.

Second. I’m not a socialist , I’m pretty strongly libertarian/conservative.

Lastly, I never made up an excuse, quoting myself directly again about Hillary and the democrats “one of the worst presidential candidates in history under a democratic strategy formulated by the keystone cops”.

All of this points to a sound rationale for why a Republican nominee with the worst upside down approval number in history won the election and why have s approval rating doesn’t ever significantly raise above the ceiling of his direct support.

[MementoMori_]

No, I reiterated that President Trump won the electoral college to address your criticism of him for "losing" the popular vote. As I demonstrated, that criticism is bogus because President Trump's strategy wasn't designed to win the popular vote.

I must give you credit though for accomplishing quite a feat as a conservative: you've managed to cough up pretty much all of the socialist talking points on this issue. Some soul searching might be in order.

[Izumiblu]

If you could understand the correlation between popular vote and approval rating it might help you understand why his approval rating has a pretty firm ceiling. The argument has zero to do with winning or losing. Probably best you don’t volunteer for the next Republican nominee unless it’s like... fetching coffee or sticking signs in medians.

[Poormanscomedian]

That is when the ask socialist liberals only, of course 95 out of 100 of those will down Trump, and the 5 that didn't were too stoned to say.

[MackToday]

That's because they're actually communist revolutionaries fighting against the country. Their shitty system doesn't work so Trump is far more popular then they are.

[awesometjgreen]

What? This is flat out wrong. He has the lowest approval rating of any modern sitting president. The fat fucking baboon has failed on all of his major policies.
1) no shitty trump care
2) no stupid ass wall
3) no jobs because he outsourced more than obama
4) no peace with north korea because he's a fucking orangutan

[Poormanscomedian]

No you got your head up your ass too far to realize that his numbers are better then Obama 3 years into first term,

[awesometjgreen]

@Poormanscomedian? Really says who?

[kingofthellamas]

I'm afraid that's a delusion. America has never had so few allies. If that's strength to you then crack on.

[Poormanscomedian]

They laughed at Obama , thought he was a joke

[HotJealousy]

Wow! A massive achievement of 44% approval!! Impressive for a two party country!

(Please read in a deeply sarcastic voice)

(A yes not technically two party... but it basically is lets be honest)

[WhatAboutBob]

Trump loves his country, and libtards hate that about him.

[Poormanscomedian]

Democrats want us to be 3rd world country to make things "fair" or "balanced"

[WhatAboutBob]

@Poormanscomedian
Yes. and they are insane.

[humanearth]

Lets Who Stop the Trump Machine. I wish the Democrats would just give up and leave the county

[humanearth]

I notice on everything with Trump. There never a woman to commit

[hangedman]

President Trump, your presidency seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

[kingofthellamas]

Because there are over 300 million Americans. That's a lot of very thick people.

[Pamina]

The Simpsons. :)

[Poormanscomedian]

Because he actually created millions of jobs unlike Obama who just said he created jobs.

[Anonymous]

I’m conservative and I never liked Trump. But I UNDERSTAND him and how he rose to power. He got elected because of how the LEFT acts.

[Poormanscomedian]

"TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP"

[kingofthellamas]

Do you know trump is an old word for a fart?

[Poormanscomedian]

@kingofthellamas who cares , he is doing a great job for real Americans , not traitors like the Demorats and their followers

[MarketData]

More Trumptard fantasies

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take