Trump MAGAThread XII: A Tarriff-ic Thread!

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Paul Ryan is gone, thankfully, and Trump now has his average approval rating at 42.4% - highest since March - and two polls put him above 50%. Although minus one week in March, he's now at his highest since his inauguration.

Senate Steamroll Soon.

You mean the C+ Rasmussen Reports poll yes? Oh wait, that was the only poll that put him over 50%. So only one poll then.


Meanwhile, Reuters A- has him at 44% 54%

39%- 53% for the B ranked You gov

Gallup (B-) has him 43% 52%

Saying "Highest sense March" doesn't mean anything sense he hasn't been in the positives sense Feb of last year.

"Senate Steamroll Soon."

Lol no

[Maineiacs]

OK, can somebody give me a reason why Hillary Clinton could be worse than Trump? Trump-supporters are insisting that Hillary could a start a war or something

She pushed for actions that would've pissed Russia off, to the point of possible war. There's also the general fact that she isn't interested in the people at all, and is corrupt as hell. Trump cares about the nation at least, he just isn't built to be a very good president.

So, Clinton was bad because she would have pissed off Russia; Trump's good because he's pissed off everyone but Russia?

[Firaxin]

She pushed for actions that would've pissed Russia off, to the point of possible war. There's also the general fact that she isn't interested in the people at all, and is corrupt as hell. Trump cares about the nation at least, he just isn't built to be a very good president.

So, Clinton was bad because she would have pissed off Russia; Trump's good because he's pissed off everyone but Russia?

More like Clinton would piss everyone off just as much or more, but she has the smarts to somewhat hide it. Trump is slightly better in that he doesn't piss off Russia, and he generally acts in the interests of the people, or at least what he thinks is the interest of the people. The problem with Trump is that he's blunt, uncharismatic, short tempered, and has below average intelligence. He tries (but ultimately fails) to be a good president. Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish. Most people who wanted Clinton over Trump did so because she actually could've performed the job well, and wanted to keep the image of a strong U.S. where Trump makes it look weak.

[Roskian Federation]

The party IS the country..

I have yet to find a single person who literally operates on the mentality that "This is bad for the country, but I am inexplicably loyal to this particular party so there ya go!"

no its mostly lying about the president's accomplishments

[Valrifell]

The party IS the country..

I have yet to find a single person who literally operates on the mentality that "This is bad for the country, but I am inexplicably loyal to this particular party so there ya go!"

"So what if the Party I support would end up destroying the world? They support this specific point that hasn't been acted on in years!"

[Vassenor]

So, Clinton was bad because she would have pissed off Russia; Trump's good because he's pissed off everyone but Russia?

More like Clinton would piss everyone off just as much or more, but she has the smarts to somewhat hide it. Trump is slightly better in that he doesn't piss off Russia, and he generally acts in the interests of the people, or at least what he thinks is the interest of the people. The problem with Trump is that he's blunt, uncharismatic, short tempered, and has below average intelligence. He tries (but ultimately fails) to be a good president. Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish. Most people who wanted Clinton over Trump did so because she actually could've performed the job well, and wanted to keep the image of a strong U.S. where Trump makes it look weak.

Remember, handing massive tax cuts to the wealthiest is in the interests of the people.

"Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish."

While Trump is using the presidency to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer cash into his various businesses.

[Firaxin]

More like Clinton would piss everyone off just as much or more, but she has the smarts to somewhat hide it. Trump is slightly better in that he doesn't piss off Russia, and he generally acts in the interests of the people, or at least what he thinks is the interest of the people. The problem with Trump is that he's blunt, uncharismatic, short tempered, and has below average intelligence. He tries (but ultimately fails) to be a good president. Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish. Most people who wanted Clinton over Trump did so because she actually could've performed the job well, and wanted to keep the image of a strong U.S. where Trump makes it look weak.

Remember, handing massive tax cuts to the wealthiest is in the interests of the people.

"Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish."

While Trump is using the presidency to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer cash into his various businesses.

Well according to Trump's beliefs, yes, tax cuts to the wealthy is in the interest of the people. He believes that the rich will use that money for good.

[Hittanryan]

Remember, handing massive tax cuts to the wealthiest is in the interests of the people.

"Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish."

While Trump is using the presidency to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer cash into his various businesses.

Well according to Trump's beliefs, yes, tax cuts to the wealthy is in the interest of the people. He believes that the rich will use that money for good.

I don’t think Trump has any policy positions. To him the presidency is an ego trip, advertising tool, and revenue generating scheme.

[Telconi]

More like Clinton would piss everyone off just as much or more, but she has the smarts to somewhat hide it. Trump is slightly better in that he doesn't piss off Russia, and he generally acts in the interests of the people, or at least what he thinks is the interest of the people. The problem with Trump is that he's blunt, uncharismatic, short tempered, and has below average intelligence. He tries (but ultimately fails) to be a good president. Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish. Most people who wanted Clinton over Trump did so because she actually could've performed the job well, and wanted to keep the image of a strong U.S. where Trump makes it look weak.

Remember, handing massive tax cuts to the wealthiest is in the interests of the people.

"Clinton would use the Presidency as a tool for herself, not the people, and everyone hates the selfish."

While Trump is using the presidency to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer cash into his various businesses.

TIL I am one of the "wealthiest"...

[Telconi]

I have yet to find a single person who literally operates on the mentality that "This is bad for the country, but I am inexplicably loyal to this particular party so there ya go!"

Have you not seen American Hyper Partisanship?

Trump is the product of this.

The logical conclusion of Hyper Partisanship was the last election.

Where, other then the people who voted for third party's/write in candidates, America had to choose between two colossal idiots based off on who would be slightly less worse then the other.

More people thought Hillary would be slightly less worse then Trump, but here we are.

Both candidates would made poor presidents. The former being like the last guy but only more old, would be a cranky old bat, less likable and, pupated by corporations. So like Obama who was good but just worse in every way and would damage the country more then helping it.
And Trump? Trumps work speaks for it self. Very shitty and not making sense.

Trust me, nobody who voted for Trump believes that Clinton would have been better, except Flutter...

[Petrasylvania]

Have you not seen American Hyper Partisanship?

Trump is the product of this.

The logical conclusion of Hyper Partisanship was the last election.

Where, other then the people who voted for third party's/write in candidates, America had to choose between two colossal idiots based off on who would be slightly less worse then the other.

More people thought Hillary would be slightly less worse then Trump, but here we are.

Both candidates would made poor presidents. The former being like the last guy but only more old, would be a cranky old bat, less likable and, pupated by corporations. So like Obama who was good but just worse in every way and would damage the country more then helping it.
And Trump? Trumps work speaks for it self. Very shitty and not making sense.

Trust me, nobody who voted for Trump believes that Clinton would have been better, except Flutter...

No, he was mad at Clinton because he bought the Rigged Primary tripe. Only when his precious Net Neutrality was taken away did he suddenly regret voting for Donnie.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Well according to Trump's beliefs, yes, tax cuts to the wealthy is in the interest of the people. He believes that the rich will use that money for good...

... looking porn stars

[Firaxin]

Well according to Trump's beliefs, yes, tax cuts to the wealthy is in the interest of the people. He believes that the rich will use that money for good.

I don’t think Trump has any policy positions. To him the presidency is an ego trip, advertising tool, and revenue generating scheme.

Policy positions and popularity are not mutually exclusive.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Have you not seen American Hyper Partisanship?

Trump is the product of this.

The logical conclusion of Hyper Partisanship was the last election.

Where, other then the people who voted for third party's/write in candidates, America had to choose between two colossal idiots based off on who would be slightly less worse then the other.

More people thought Hillary would be slightly less worse then Trump, but here we are.

Both candidates would made poor presidents. The former being like the last guy but only more old, would be a cranky old bat, less likable and, pupated by corporations. So like Obama who was good but just worse in every way and would damage the country more then helping it.
And Trump? Trumps work speaks for it self. Very shitty and not making sense.

Trust me, nobody who voted for Trump believes that Clinton would have been better, except Flutter...

Exactly my point.

No one would have been happy with ether candidate, we where just picking the one we hated the least.

[Telconi]

Trust me, nobody who voted for Trump believes that Clinton would have been better, except Flutter...

Exactly my point.

No one would have been happy with ether candidate, we where just picking the one we hated the least.

Sure, but that doesn't imply anyone putting "party over country"

[Hittanryan]

I don’t think Trump has any policy positions. To him the presidency is an ego trip, advertising tool, and revenue generating scheme.

Policy positions and popularity are not mutually exclusive.

You don't understand. I do not think Trump has any knowledge of policy and therefore no real policy positions. He found a line that would get him votes and ran with it. Most of the time during the campaign he would state one policy position then reverse himself the next week. Now that he's in office he's actually doing the opposite of most of his campaign promises.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Paul Ryan is gone, thankfully, and Trump now has his average approval rating at 42.4% - highest since March - and two polls put him above 50%. Although minus one week in March, he's now at his highest since his inauguration.

Senate Steamroll Soon.

American Research Group, also with a C+ rating said 37%-58%

Oh and they lean R too.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Exactly my point.

No one would have been happy with ether candidate, we where just picking the one we hated the least.

Sure, but that doesn't imply anyone putting "party over country"

Party over country has been the norm for a while now.

Both party's believe if the other side wins then the country is dead. Instead of working together despite our disagreements.

Both sides have become violent, disregarding the nations laws in there strong belief in there party.

[Telconi]

Sure, but that doesn't imply anyone putting "party over country"

Party over country has been the norm for a while now.

Both party's believe if the other side wins then the country is dead. Instead of working together despite our disagreements.

Both sides have become violent, disregarding the nations laws in there strong belief in there party.

As a crummy method of vilifying people, sure.

[Senkaku]

Party over country has been the norm for a while now.

Both party's believe if the other side wins then the country is dead. Instead of working together despite our disagreements.

Both sides have become violent, disregarding the nations laws in there strong belief in there party.

As a crummy method of vilifying people, sure.

Not really. When partisanship takes us to the mental gymnastics we see today on cable news, for example- maybe no one’s going in with the intention of thinking “let me do things that are bad for the country today” (though I’d bet money there’s some folks on both sides, especially your “it has to get worse before it gets better” types), but that’s still the end result. It’s not vilifying people, it’s an accurate assessment of the state of the nation.

[Cekoviu]

Sure, but that doesn't imply anyone putting "party over country"

Party over country has been the norm for a while now.

Both party's believe if the other side wins then the country is dead. Instead of working together despite our disagreements.

Both sides have become violent, disregarding the nations laws in there strong belief in there party.

I would be less worried about the literal end of humanity if the Republican Party wasn't chock full of climate change deniers.

[Myrensis]

OK, can somebody give me a reason why Hillary Clinton could be worse than Trump? Trump-supporters are insisting that Hillary could a start a war or something

She pushed for actions that would've pissed Russia off, to the point of possible war. There's also the general fact that she isn't interested in the people at all, and is corrupt as hell. Trump cares about the nation at least, he just isn't built to be a very good president.

If you really believe that, I've got some friends in the Nigerian Royal Family I'd like to put you in contact with, they've got a really exciting investment opportunity in the Brooklyn Bridge.

[Petrasylvania]

Party over country has been the norm for a while now.

Both party's believe if the other side wins then the country is dead. Instead of working together despite our disagreements.

Both sides have become violent, disregarding the nations laws in there strong belief in there party.

I would be less worried about the literal end of humanity if the Republican Party wasn't chock full of climate change deniers.

Or liberation hard warhawks itching to invade Iran and North Korea, maybe even at the same time.

[Tobleste]

OK, can somebody give me a reason why Hillary Clinton could be worse than Trump? Trump-supporters are insisting that Hillary could a start a war or something

I'll try and see it from their pov.

1. She supports stricter gun laws.
2. She supports abortion rights.
3. She supports improved minority rights and doesn't support cultural reactionaries.
4. She is a woman.
5. She is not sufficiently Christian and doesn't favour Christianity in her decision making.
6. Clinton had been demonised in right wing media for 2 decades so most of them thought she was a mass murderer.

[Tobleste]

Party over country has been the norm for a while now.

Both party's believe if the other side wins then the country is dead. Instead of working together despite our disagreements.

Both sides have become violent, disregarding the nations laws in there strong belief in there party.

I would be less worried about the literal end of humanity if the Republican Party wasn't chock full of climate change deniers.

Yeah it's not difficult to argue republicans are actually dangerous and unfit for power. Democrats can be disagreed with but they're not the existential threat to America they're made out to be.