Rezzy Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) News is that Trump will announce his SCOTUS nominee in about an hour. As Lord Raven said, we got some good news today. I don't know where the rumor otherwise came from, or how much weight it had. For better or worse, Trump has been doing what he said he would, and he said that he would uphold LGBT rights. Trump keeping Obama LGBT protections 51 minutes ago, Tryhard said: It's around 50%, but I think what's more interesting is the statistics of how many days it took to reach a majority (50%+) disapproval rating compared to the other recent presidents. Reagan: 727 Bush I: 1336 Clinton: 573 Bush II: 1205 Obama: 936 Trump: 8 We'll see how Trump's approval levels off as time goes on. His approval is about what Obama's was for much of his tenure. The strange thing about those numbers is that they don't correspond very well to how popular or successful the president was overall. Bush Sr has the highest number overall, but he was voted out in one term. Clinton has the lowest, followed by Reagan, and they were both considered fairly successful presidents who left office pretty popular. EDIT: It looks like Bush Sr didn't go below 50% until barely before the election. Edited February 1, 2017 by Rezzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, Rezzy said: We'll see how Trump's approval levels off as time goes on. His approval is about what Obama's was for much of his tenure. The strange thing about those numbers is that they don't correspond very well to how popular or successful the president was overall. Bush Sr has the highest number overall, but he was voted out in one term. Clinton has the lowest, followed by Reagan, and they were both considered fairly successful presidents who left office pretty popular. If you do the math and make appropriate statistical predictions, the magnitude of Trump's numerical superiority over Clinton and Reagan is a clear indicator that Trump is going to be reelected at least three times, likely with greater than 100% of the vote for the second and (possibly) third times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Tryhard said: It's around 50%, but I think what's more interesting is the statistics of how many days it took to reach a majority (50%+) disapproval rating compared to the other recent presidents. Reagan: 727 Bush I: 1336 Clinton: 573 Bush II: 1205 Obama: 936 Trump: 8 When the legacy media routinely refers to the man as "the second coming of Hitler", it's not surprising. As for Sunwoo, I care because America is the world hegemon and American policy affects the world. And I would prefer to see leftists not ruin the greatest empire to ever exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunwoo Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Comrade said: As for Sunwoo, I care because America is the world hegemon and American policy affects the world. And I would prefer to see leftists not ruin the greatest empire to ever exist. If it's really the "greatest empire to ever exist", then you come over here and you live this reality and see if you still feel that way. Oh wait, you don't actually want to live here, do you? Also, no duh American policy affects the world, what's going on now is affecting the world, and people are not in agreement that it's great. But then again, all the beliefs you've expressed in this thread are a mix of contradictions with the only consistent thing being "fuck the liberals" so I can't take anything you say seriously at all. If this were a game of mafia, I'd probably see you as self-contradicting scum right now. Edited February 1, 2017 by Sunwoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 41 minutes ago, Comrade said: When the legacy media routinely refers to the man as "the second coming of Hitler", it's not surprising. Well yeah, his top advisor is a Neo-Nazi, and his media people have lied and pushed the term "alternative fact." As for Sunwoo, I care because America is the world hegemon and American policy affects the world. And I would prefer to see leftists not ruin the greatest empire to ever exist. A) this country has always sucked B) you fail on numerous occasions to argue that the left is wrong, this doesn't mean we are correct, this means you're a shitty arguer C) this "left" vs "right" bullshit is getting old and it shows that you're both not open to ideals, you project a caricature what we argue rather than actually listen D) the right is fucking up this country because again they allowed Trump to get advice from a Neo-Nazi Life, I get you wish you lived here and had no convenient access to health insurance, housing, and education on top of hatred of anything that isn't Christian... and you want to join the anti-Semitic alt-right but that doesn't mean anything you are saying here is rooted in fact. In fact, it's vindication and showing a lack of knowledge of what's happening; instead it shows a sense of spite. Are you just here to troll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) the empire" is inevitably crumbling down. but it's not because of "leftists" who are pretty much nonexistent in america's political discourse, but overgrown toddlers like trump accelerating the internal contradictions that the us has always been rooted in. Edited February 1, 2017 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetragrammaton Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Rezzy said: We'll see how Trump's approval levels off as time goes on. His approval is about what Obama's was for much of his tenure. The strange thing about those numbers is that they don't correspond very well to how popular or successful the president was overall. Bush Sr has the highest number overall, but he was voted out in one term. Clinton has the lowest, followed by Reagan, and they were both considered fairly successful presidents who left office pretty popular. EDIT: It looks like Bush Sr didn't go below 50% until barely before the election. Isn't it obvious? He already got less popular votes than Clinton back in November 2016. Unless a lot of people suddenly decide to become his new biggest fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Bush Jr. lost the popular vote too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, hanhnn said: Isn't it obvious? He already got less popular votes than Clinton back in November 2016. Unless a lot of people suddenly decide to become his new biggest fans. Bill Clinton never cracked 50% in either of his elections and Bush got a lower share of popular votes than Gore in 2000. I'm not saying Trump will get a better approval rating, who knows, but it's a small sample size, and low popularity initially isn't a historical indicator for later in the term. Obama's approval hovered in the 40s for much of 2012. I'm not even a Trump supporter, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective. People underestimated Trump's supporters and thought he could never win the election, and that mindset may have been what got him elected in the first place. Presidents often tend to get spikes in disapproval when the are actually implementing their agenda. Obama got his biggest backlash with Obama-care, but his approval rose in his later years, when he basically accomplished f-all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Thoughts on Neil Gorsuch? I'm initially favorable, but I'm a little wary of his stance on assisted suicide/euthanasia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 18 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: Bush Jr. lost the popular vote too. Yeah, since 1988, only Bush in 2004, and Obama in both elections passed the 50% mark. That's the minority of presidential elections, it's part of the reason I'd want ranked voting or something similar, rather than a strict FPtP popular vote over the Electoral College. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 who was the last president to have abysmal approval ratings on day one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Balcerzak said: Thoughts on Neil Gorsuch? I'm initially favorable, but I'm a little wary of his stance on assisted suicide/euthanasia. I'll have to read up on him before I can say one way or the other, but I looked up his euthanasia stance. As one in the health care field, I can say that I would not want to live in the condition that some patients go through at end of life, nor would I want to put my loved ones through that. In addition to my family, I also have power of attorney for both parents and an uncle in regards to healthcare. Life is not something to be taken lightly, but there are times when the only possibility is more suffering, and people should be able to make the choice to pass peacefully into death. One thing for end of life that is common is the removal of a feeding tube. Personally, I think it would be better to euthanize them, than just allow them to slowly starve to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Rezzy said: One thing for end of life that is common is the removal of a feeding tube. Personally, I think it would be better to euthanize them, than just allow them to slowly starve to death. In what kind of situations does this occur? Does it happen in places where Euthanasia/assissted suicide is illegal? If that is the case, what is the logic behind starving them is ok but euthanasia isn't? Edit: this might be a little bit off-topic, but I believe rezzy lives in the states so it isn't totally off...? Well as long as she actually is from the states *shrug* Edited February 1, 2017 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Mage Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Radiant head said: who was the last president to have abysmal approval ratings on day one Well, Trump was a hated figure even before he became a candidate. 13 hours ago, Rezzy said: I'll have to read up on him before I can say one way or the other, but I looked up his euthanasia stance. As one in the health care field, I can say that I would not want to live in the condition that some patients go through at end of life, nor would I want to put my loved ones through that. In addition to my family, I also have power of attorney for both parents and an uncle in regards to healthcare. Life is not something to be taken lightly, but there are times when the only possibility is more suffering, and people should be able to make the choice to pass peacefully into death. One thing for end of life that is common is the removal of a feeding tube. Personally, I think it would be better to euthanize them, than just allow them to slowly starve to death. I've noticed a trend that people a lot of the people that are against euthanasia (and abortion and vaccines for that matter) never had a relative or a loved one that was in a situation where euthanasia was an option. So they really don't what they are talking. Edited February 1, 2017 by Water Mage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandSteve Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Well, I disagree with Neil Gorsuch on pretty much every issue. In the spirit of fairness, however, I hope the Democrats give him the same fair consideration as the Republicans gave Merrick Garland last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) "In a 2003 case, Gorsuch denied requests of death-row inmates seeking to escape executions." "all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." ok. bad pick, though certainly not just for the hypocrisy outlined above. unless he thinks there's some fundamental difference between a jury + judge determining death is different than a doctor + family + individual is. Edited February 1, 2017 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 7 hours ago, SlayerX said: In what kind of situations does this occur? Does it happen in places where Euthanasia/assissted suicide is illegal? If that is the case, what is the logic behind starving them is ok but euthanasia isn't? Edit: this might be a little bit off-topic, but I believe rezzy lives in the states so it isn't totally off...? Well as long as she actually is from the states *shrug* Removing feeding tubes happens all the time, often when people are on life support. One famous example is Terri Schiavo, who was on life support for years and the method to let her die was to remove her feeding tube. That was an extreme case, but it is fairy common. I guess the rationale is that removing the feeding tube is only letting them die, and not actively killing them. I live in the Midwest of the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) The Merrick Garland issue still is appalling! The NY Times has a very favorable article on Neil Gorsuch; however, looking at his judicial history, I also disagree with him on nearly every issue. Edited February 1, 2017 by Res Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, Comrade said: When the legacy media routinely refers to the man as "the second coming of Hitler", it's not surprising. The media is more disapproved than Trump, and for good reason, but people form their own opinions of Trump, mostly that he seems like a bad choice of president to a majority of the public just after being sworn in. He was kind of considered a joke by a lot of people even before he ran. While he hasn't quite reached 25%-70% approval-disapproval rating that Bush did in 2008, it isn't exactly promising when he's the most disapproved president in history for inauguration. To deny that he is that is, to put it a certain way, alternative facts. Edited February 1, 2017 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Er... reforming the U.S. higher education system how? I can't imagine anything but a decrease in the quality of the college system happening as a result... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) yeah, it's been established that he's reached majority disapproval in record time. he's the most controversial president of my time certainly, and perhaps the most controversial in a long time. his policies are divisive, authoritarian, and plainly stupid. his actions are selfish. he's a megalomaniac. edit: just my $.02 on the sean spicer thing: the tweet was made in jest, but that's irrelevant. whether he's aware of the fact that he lies and is proud of it does not matter. he's still a liar. Edited February 1, 2017 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 39 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said: yeah, it's been established that he's reached majority disapproval in record time. he's the most controversial president of my time certainly, and perhaps the most controversial in a long time. his policies are divisive, authoritarian, and plainly stupid. his actions are selfish. he's a megalomaniac. edit: just my $.02 on the sean spicer thing: the tweet was made in jest, but that's irrelevant. whether he's aware of the fact that he lies and is proud of it does not matter. he's still a liar. The fact that the tweet is still up now, makes me think it was sarcasm, since he probably would have deleted it by now, if it was taking the Onion seriously, which sadly, I see a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 12 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said: "In a 2003 case, Gorsuch denied requests of death-row inmates seeking to escape executions." "all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." ok. bad pick, though certainly not just for the hypocrisy outlined above. unless he thinks there's some fundamental difference between a jury + judge determining death is different than a doctor + family + individual is. That wikipedia summary is a terrible description of the actual case. Further I don't see that as hypocrisy so much as him actually applying what he preaches as far as relying on law and precedent ("The federal appellate judges said they based their decision, in part, on the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that trial judges are allowed considerable discretion to decide whether a potential juror should be excluded."), jiving rather well with his statement espousing “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 that's fair. again, though, i think he's a bad pick for lots of other reasons. 1 hour ago, Rezzy said: The fact that the tweet is still up now, makes me think it was sarcasm, since he probably would have deleted it by now, if it was taking the Onion seriously, which sadly, I see a lot. i noted that i think spicer is joking. tbh even if spicer were an idiot, it's so unlikely that he doesn't know what the onion is that he'd had to have been living under a rock for it to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.