Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you don't think that a President dictates policy...you must have missed the last 100 years of American politics. There are things called EO's that are direct policy action devices. Furthermore, in our modern setting, the sitting party in Congress tries to work in tandem with the direction given by the president. I'm not sure if you are just uninformed or maliciously conflating what is a commonly known issue. President leads policy. This has been even more true in recent years due to the morass of Congress and their noted inability to do anything on their own.Large population centers...well I'm talking about the population at large...I'm not ignoring certain segments simply because I belong or do not belong to them or don't agree with them. We live in America where everybody (in theory) has an equal voice...you don't have less of a voice simply because you live in a city.I think we are talking past each other.Really? Contain costs? AF1 down by $1billion. Eliminating positions in the State Dept. Cutting taxes to generate more revenue.
Ignoring liberals because they have become irrelevant.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Knowing the market? Tapped into the distrust and disgust of the mainstream American. Got himself elected against all odds.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
I'm referring to the American public in general, you seem to be referring to specific costs or specific segments of the American public.
This is actually similar to what Trump is doing, so it is unsurprising for you to be doing this, however, reality ignores the fictional constructs individuals build for themselves. The majority of the American public disapprove of Trump. This is because he is ignoring large segments of the population (operating in a "my way or the highway" sort of operation...rather than "making a deal").
I would suggest that your supposition of the majority disapproving of Trump is tainted by false polls. Those polls are focused in large population centers - the very voter base that disapproved of Trump before he was elected.
Going forward and fulfilling the promises that got him elected is hardly "my way or the highway". He was elected based on his program positions, and now he is implementing them, as he promised he would. There is no good reason for him to shortfall his constituency by "compromising" with what, today, is an irrelevant portion of American voters. Frankly, he doesn't need them to get his policies passed (and his promises kept). If, and when, he does need them, then he will compromise.
Perhaps you remember Obama's comment to Paul Ryan in 2010, that "I won" in order to shut down Ryan's directions. Or, maybe you recall when Obama told Republicans that "elections have consequences" in 2009.
I would suggest this is a lesson the liberals are learning the hard way.
I agree that Trump is following through on a lot of his campaign promises. However, when it comes to the government, oftentimes what makes the difference between a good policy and a bad policy is not how it looks on paper or theory...but in how it is implemented. For instance, it is relatively non-controversial that every American should receive care from our medical facilities if they are in need of such care...I don't think many Americans would be okay with people wasting away and dying because they couldn't afford some of the insane prices that come with our medical care.
However, I think it is also safe to say that Obamacare, which was built to address this, is largely ineffective because of its horrid implementation. Likewise, how Trump is conducting himself and implementing his policies is a large part of the reason why he is failing to get the majority of America to support him. In short, he is failing at being a "leader"
You can criticize Obama all you want. I may even agree with you on some points ... I just criticized Obamacare and I never said nor pretended to say he is a perfect...or even a "good" president. However, Obama has nothing to do with Trump. You have to judge Trump's actions for themselves...not in comparison to somebody you disagree with.
As an aside, it is curious that you did compare Obama's actions, which you seemingly disapprove of, with Trump...but don't have an issue with Trump's actions.
First, I did not disapprove of Obama's actions .. I merely cited them as an unchallenged action that, when Trump does it, he gets challenged.
You claimed that the majority of American people are upset with Trump. Since you are obviously unable to talk to all of the American people, you rely on polls and news articles to form your opinion. My point was that the primary indicator of distrust - the recent polls - are flawed. Given the size of his rallies, I would suggest that the majority of Americans feel quite differently than you posit. Failing to consider the other 45 states is a gross misrepresentation of the opinions of the American people. You base your dislike, supposedly, on the fact that he is "... failing to get the majority of America to support him ..." ( a statement much is question).
Your comment about "good" policy versus "bad" policy is interesting. How it is implemented - not the goal - is the determining factor of "good" policy? Policy is the statement of goals - process is the statement of methodology. Trump does not determine policy - that's what Congress gets paid to do. The process of implementing the direction of Congress is the province of the executive branch (Trump).
But, we are simply doing a linguistic tango. You have an inherent bias against Trump (because you disagree with the policies he is implementing). I have a bias for Trump (because he is implement the policies I agree strongly with). The question I have is this ....
If (I like to think WHEN) Trump's actions reinvigorate the economy, create more jobs, increase our national security, and resolve issue facing the world today, are you going to be ready to vote for him in 2020?
You are justifiable to call into question the validity of polls. However, you cannot do so and then assert an claim with even less evidence behind it. You cite Trump's rally size...you realize that over 300 million people live in America right? Even if Trump was able to put together a rally of 3 million people...it would represent a portion of the America population less than 1%. Gary Johnson could have pulled his voters together and held a rally of that size. If you honestly think rally size is an indication of support...I think we may be done here. You may lack the mathematical and statistical ability to accurately decipher the magnitude of the numbers we are speaking on.
A President's "suggestion" is strong enough to rally most members of his party behind him. It is why when we have a President and Congress with the same party in power...they tend to move rather rapidly through the "suggestions" given to them. However, as he lacks formal authority I won't really argue too much on this point as long as you realize the reality of the situation...which is that the president leads his party in their policy initiatives.If you don't think that a President dictates policy...you must have missed the last 100 years of American politics. There are things called EO's that are direct policy action devices. Furthermore, in our modern setting, the sitting party in Congress tries to work in tandem with the direction given by the president. I'm not sure if you are just uninformed or maliciously conflating what is a commonly known issue. President leads policy. This has been even more true in recent years due to the morass of Congress and their noted inability to do anything on their own.Large population centers...well I'm talking about the population at large...I'm not ignoring certain segments simply because I belong or do not belong to them or don't agree with them. We live in America where everybody (in theory) has an equal voice...you don't have less of a voice simply because you live in a city.I think we are talking past each other.
I'm referring to the American public in general, you seem to be referring to specific costs or specific segments of the American public.
This is actually similar to what Trump is doing, so it is unsurprising for you to be doing this, however, reality ignores the fictional constructs individuals build for themselves. The majority of the American public disapprove of Trump. This is because he is ignoring large segments of the population (operating in a "my way or the highway" sort of operation...rather than "making a deal").
I would suggest that your supposition of the majority disapproving of Trump is tainted by false polls. Those polls are focused in large population centers - the very voter base that disapproved of Trump before he was elected.
Going forward and fulfilling the promises that got him elected is hardly "my way or the highway". He was elected based on his program positions, and now he is implementing them, as he promised he would. There is no good reason for him to shortfall his constituency by "compromising" with what, today, is an irrelevant portion of American voters. Frankly, he doesn't need them to get his policies passed (and his promises kept). If, and when, he does need them, then he will compromise.
Perhaps you remember Obama's comment to Paul Ryan in 2010, that "I won" in order to shut down Ryan's directions. Or, maybe you recall when Obama told Republicans that "elections have consequences" in 2009.
I would suggest this is a lesson the liberals are learning the hard way.
I agree that Trump is following through on a lot of his campaign promises. However, when it comes to the government, oftentimes what makes the difference between a good policy and a bad policy is not how it looks on paper or theory...but in how it is implemented. For instance, it is relatively non-controversial that every American should receive care from our medical facilities if they are in need of such care...I don't think many Americans would be okay with people wasting away and dying because they couldn't afford some of the insane prices that come with our medical care.
However, I think it is also safe to say that Obamacare, which was built to address this, is largely ineffective because of its horrid implementation. Likewise, how Trump is conducting himself and implementing his policies is a large part of the reason why he is failing to get the majority of America to support him. In short, he is failing at being a "leader"
You can criticize Obama all you want. I may even agree with you on some points ... I just criticized Obamacare and I never said nor pretended to say he is a perfect...or even a "good" president. However, Obama has nothing to do with Trump. You have to judge Trump's actions for themselves...not in comparison to somebody you disagree with.
As an aside, it is curious that you did compare Obama's actions, which you seemingly disapprove of, with Trump...but don't have an issue with Trump's actions.
First, I did not disapprove of Obama's actions .. I merely cited them as an unchallenged action that, when Trump does it, he gets challenged.
You claimed that the majority of American people are upset with Trump. Since you are obviously unable to talk to all of the American people, you rely on polls and news articles to form your opinion. My point was that the primary indicator of distrust - the recent polls - are flawed. Given the size of his rallies, I would suggest that the majority of Americans feel quite differently than you posit. Failing to consider the other 45 states is a gross misrepresentation of the opinions of the American people. You base your dislike, supposedly, on the fact that he is "... failing to get the majority of America to support him ..." ( a statement much is question).
Your comment about "good" policy versus "bad" policy is interesting. How it is implemented - not the goal - is the determining factor of "good" policy? Policy is the statement of goals - process is the statement of methodology. Trump does not determine policy - that's what Congress gets paid to do. The process of implementing the direction of Congress is the province of the executive branch (Trump).
But, we are simply doing a linguistic tango. You have an inherent bias against Trump (because you disagree with the policies he is implementing). I have a bias for Trump (because he is implement the policies I agree strongly with). The question I have is this ....
If (I like to think WHEN) Trump's actions reinvigorate the economy, create more jobs, increase our national security, and resolve issue facing the world today, are you going to be ready to vote for him in 2020?
You are justifiable to call into question the validity of polls. However, you cannot do so and then assert an claim with even less evidence behind it. You cite Trump's rally size...you realize that over 300 million people live in America right? Even if Trump was able to put together a rally of 3 million people...it would represent a portion of the America population less than 1%. Gary Johnson could have pulled his voters together and held a rally of that size. If you honestly think rally size is an indication of support...I think we may be done here. You may lack the mathematical and statistical ability to accurately decipher the magnitude of the numbers we are speaking on.
First of all, EOs are policy ACTION devices ... as you said. They do not determine policy - they implement it. The president SUGGESTS policy, but does not dictate it.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. CNN poll size = 530 people.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. Anti-Trump rally in Chicago = 173 people, in New York = 300 people. You tell me.
Don't you worry your little head about my mathematical ability.
A President's "suggestion" is strong enough to rally most members of his party behind him. It is why when we have a President and Congress with the same party in power...they tend to move rather rapidly through the "suggestions" given to them. However, as he lacks formal authority I won't really argue too much on this point as long as you realize the reality of the situation...which is that the president leads his party in their policy initiatives.If you don't think that a President dictates policy...you must have missed the last 100 years of American politics. There are things called EO's that are direct policy action devices. Furthermore, in our modern setting, the sitting party in Congress tries to work in tandem with the direction given by the president. I'm not sure if you are just uninformed or maliciously conflating what is a commonly known issue. President leads policy. This has been even more true in recent years due to the morass of Congress and their noted inability to do anything on their own.Large population centers...well I'm talking about the population at large...I'm not ignoring certain segments simply because I belong or do not belong to them or don't agree with them. We live in America where everybody (in theory) has an equal voice...you don't have less of a voice simply because you live in a city.I would suggest that your supposition of the majority disapproving of Trump is tainted by false polls. Those polls are focused in large population centers - the very voter base that disapproved of Trump before he was elected.
Going forward and fulfilling the promises that got him elected is hardly "my way or the highway". He was elected based on his program positions, and now he is implementing them, as he promised he would. There is no good reason for him to shortfall his constituency by "compromising" with what, today, is an irrelevant portion of American voters. Frankly, he doesn't need them to get his policies passed (and his promises kept). If, and when, he does need them, then he will compromise.
Perhaps you remember Obama's comment to Paul Ryan in 2010, that "I won" in order to shut down Ryan's directions. Or, maybe you recall when Obama told Republicans that "elections have consequences" in 2009.
I would suggest this is a lesson the liberals are learning the hard way.
I agree that Trump is following through on a lot of his campaign promises. However, when it comes to the government, oftentimes what makes the difference between a good policy and a bad policy is not how it looks on paper or theory...but in how it is implemented. For instance, it is relatively non-controversial that every American should receive care from our medical facilities if they are in need of such care...I don't think many Americans would be okay with people wasting away and dying because they couldn't afford some of the insane prices that come with our medical care.
However, I think it is also safe to say that Obamacare, which was built to address this, is largely ineffective because of its horrid implementation. Likewise, how Trump is conducting himself and implementing his policies is a large part of the reason why he is failing to get the majority of America to support him. In short, he is failing at being a "leader"
You can criticize Obama all you want. I may even agree with you on some points ... I just criticized Obamacare and I never said nor pretended to say he is a perfect...or even a "good" president. However, Obama has nothing to do with Trump. You have to judge Trump's actions for themselves...not in comparison to somebody you disagree with.
As an aside, it is curious that you did compare Obama's actions, which you seemingly disapprove of, with Trump...but don't have an issue with Trump's actions.
First, I did not disapprove of Obama's actions .. I merely cited them as an unchallenged action that, when Trump does it, he gets challenged.
You claimed that the majority of American people are upset with Trump. Since you are obviously unable to talk to all of the American people, you rely on polls and news articles to form your opinion. My point was that the primary indicator of distrust - the recent polls - are flawed. Given the size of his rallies, I would suggest that the majority of Americans feel quite differently than you posit. Failing to consider the other 45 states is a gross misrepresentation of the opinions of the American people. You base your dislike, supposedly, on the fact that he is "... failing to get the majority of America to support him ..." ( a statement much is question).
Your comment about "good" policy versus "bad" policy is interesting. How it is implemented - not the goal - is the determining factor of "good" policy? Policy is the statement of goals - process is the statement of methodology. Trump does not determine policy - that's what Congress gets paid to do. The process of implementing the direction of Congress is the province of the executive branch (Trump).
But, we are simply doing a linguistic tango. You have an inherent bias against Trump (because you disagree with the policies he is implementing). I have a bias for Trump (because he is implement the policies I agree strongly with). The question I have is this ....
If (I like to think WHEN) Trump's actions reinvigorate the economy, create more jobs, increase our national security, and resolve issue facing the world today, are you going to be ready to vote for him in 2020?
You are justifiable to call into question the validity of polls. However, you cannot do so and then assert an claim with even less evidence behind it. You cite Trump's rally size...you realize that over 300 million people live in America right? Even if Trump was able to put together a rally of 3 million people...it would represent a portion of the America population less than 1%. Gary Johnson could have pulled his voters together and held a rally of that size. If you honestly think rally size is an indication of support...I think we may be done here. You may lack the mathematical and statistical ability to accurately decipher the magnitude of the numbers we are speaking on.
First of all, EOs are policy ACTION devices ... as you said. They do not determine policy - they implement it. The president SUGGESTS policy, but does not dictate it.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. CNN poll size = 530 people.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. Anti-Trump rally in Chicago = 173 people, in New York = 300 people. You tell me.
Don't you worry your little head about my mathematical ability.
You know we had this little thing called an election...which is pretty much like a poll in itself. In case you missed it, the majority of people did not vote for Trump in that election. Furthermore, the popular results of the election...which did include many millions of Americans...were shockingly similar to the majority of the polls across the nation. It was only since we do not hold a popular election (rather an electoral one), that Trump won.
Again, I'm not going to assert that polls are the end all be all, but they are shown to be reliable. Rallies, in which only are for people who supposedly support a candidate or person...are both biased, and small in sample size in comparison to that "election" thing we had.
Do you remember the original point of this whole discussion? It was that Trump is not trying to unite America, but is bullying his way forward regardless of the fact that most Americans do not support him.A President's "suggestion" is strong enough to rally most members of his party behind him. It is why when we have a President and Congress with the same party in power...they tend to move rather rapidly through the "suggestions" given to them. However, as he lacks formal authority I won't really argue too much on this point as long as you realize the reality of the situation...which is that the president leads his party in their policy initiatives.If you don't think that a President dictates policy...you must have missed the last 100 years of American politics. There are things called EO's that are direct policy action devices. Furthermore, in our modern setting, the sitting party in Congress tries to work in tandem with the direction given by the president. I'm not sure if you are just uninformed or maliciously conflating what is a commonly known issue. President leads policy. This has been even more true in recent years due to the morass of Congress and their noted inability to do anything on their own.Large population centers...well I'm talking about the population at large...I'm not ignoring certain segments simply because I belong or do not belong to them or don't agree with them. We live in America where everybody (in theory) has an equal voice...you don't have less of a voice simply because you live in a city.
I agree that Trump is following through on a lot of his campaign promises. However, when it comes to the government, oftentimes what makes the difference between a good policy and a bad policy is not how it looks on paper or theory...but in how it is implemented. For instance, it is relatively non-controversial that every American should receive care from our medical facilities if they are in need of such care...I don't think many Americans would be okay with people wasting away and dying because they couldn't afford some of the insane prices that come with our medical care.
However, I think it is also safe to say that Obamacare, which was built to address this, is largely ineffective because of its horrid implementation. Likewise, how Trump is conducting himself and implementing his policies is a large part of the reason why he is failing to get the majority of America to support him. In short, he is failing at being a "leader"
You can criticize Obama all you want. I may even agree with you on some points ... I just criticized Obamacare and I never said nor pretended to say he is a perfect...or even a "good" president. However, Obama has nothing to do with Trump. You have to judge Trump's actions for themselves...not in comparison to somebody you disagree with.
As an aside, it is curious that you did compare Obama's actions, which you seemingly disapprove of, with Trump...but don't have an issue with Trump's actions.
First, I did not disapprove of Obama's actions .. I merely cited them as an unchallenged action that, when Trump does it, he gets challenged.
You claimed that the majority of American people are upset with Trump. Since you are obviously unable to talk to all of the American people, you rely on polls and news articles to form your opinion. My point was that the primary indicator of distrust - the recent polls - are flawed. Given the size of his rallies, I would suggest that the majority of Americans feel quite differently than you posit. Failing to consider the other 45 states is a gross misrepresentation of the opinions of the American people. You base your dislike, supposedly, on the fact that he is "... failing to get the majority of America to support him ..." ( a statement much is question).
Your comment about "good" policy versus "bad" policy is interesting. How it is implemented - not the goal - is the determining factor of "good" policy? Policy is the statement of goals - process is the statement of methodology. Trump does not determine policy - that's what Congress gets paid to do. The process of implementing the direction of Congress is the province of the executive branch (Trump).
But, we are simply doing a linguistic tango. You have an inherent bias against Trump (because you disagree with the policies he is implementing). I have a bias for Trump (because he is implement the policies I agree strongly with). The question I have is this ....
If (I like to think WHEN) Trump's actions reinvigorate the economy, create more jobs, increase our national security, and resolve issue facing the world today, are you going to be ready to vote for him in 2020?
You are justifiable to call into question the validity of polls. However, you cannot do so and then assert an claim with even less evidence behind it. You cite Trump's rally size...you realize that over 300 million people live in America right? Even if Trump was able to put together a rally of 3 million people...it would represent a portion of the America population less than 1%. Gary Johnson could have pulled his voters together and held a rally of that size. If you honestly think rally size is an indication of support...I think we may be done here. You may lack the mathematical and statistical ability to accurately decipher the magnitude of the numbers we are speaking on.
First of all, EOs are policy ACTION devices ... as you said. They do not determine policy - they implement it. The president SUGGESTS policy, but does not dictate it.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. CNN poll size = 530 people.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. Anti-Trump rally in Chicago = 173 people, in New York = 300 people. You tell me.
Don't you worry your little head about my mathematical ability.
You know we had this little thing called an election...which is pretty much like a poll in itself. In case you missed it, the majority of people did not vote for Trump in that election. Furthermore, the popular results of the election...which did include many millions of Americans...were shockingly similar to the majority of the polls across the nation. It was only since we do not hold a popular election (rather an electoral one), that Trump won.
Again, I'm not going to assert that polls are the end all be all, but they are shown to be reliable. Rallies, in which only are for people who supposedly support a candidate or person...are both biased, and small in sample size in comparison to that "election" thing we had.
The majority of the people did not vote for Clinton, either ---- what's your point?
Do you remember the original point of this whole discussion? It was that Trump is not trying to unite America, but is bullying his way forward regardless of the fact that most Americans do not support him.A President's "suggestion" is strong enough to rally most members of his party behind him. It is why when we have a President and Congress with the same party in power...they tend to move rather rapidly through the "suggestions" given to them. However, as he lacks formal authority I won't really argue too much on this point as long as you realize the reality of the situation...which is that the president leads his party in their policy initiatives.If you don't think that a President dictates policy...you must have missed the last 100 years of American politics. There are things called EO's that are direct policy action devices. Furthermore, in our modern setting, the sitting party in Congress tries to work in tandem with the direction given by the president. I'm not sure if you are just uninformed or maliciously conflating what is a commonly known issue. President leads policy. This has been even more true in recent years due to the morass of Congress and their noted inability to do anything on their own.First, I did not disapprove of Obama's actions .. I merely cited them as an unchallenged action that, when Trump does it, he gets challenged.
You claimed that the majority of American people are upset with Trump. Since you are obviously unable to talk to all of the American people, you rely on polls and news articles to form your opinion. My point was that the primary indicator of distrust - the recent polls - are flawed. Given the size of his rallies, I would suggest that the majority of Americans feel quite differently than you posit. Failing to consider the other 45 states is a gross misrepresentation of the opinions of the American people. You base your dislike, supposedly, on the fact that he is "... failing to get the majority of America to support him ..." ( a statement much is question).
Your comment about "good" policy versus "bad" policy is interesting. How it is implemented - not the goal - is the determining factor of "good" policy? Policy is the statement of goals - process is the statement of methodology. Trump does not determine policy - that's what Congress gets paid to do. The process of implementing the direction of Congress is the province of the executive branch (Trump).
But, we are simply doing a linguistic tango. You have an inherent bias against Trump (because you disagree with the policies he is implementing). I have a bias for Trump (because he is implement the policies I agree strongly with). The question I have is this ....
If (I like to think WHEN) Trump's actions reinvigorate the economy, create more jobs, increase our national security, and resolve issue facing the world today, are you going to be ready to vote for him in 2020?
You are justifiable to call into question the validity of polls. However, you cannot do so and then assert an claim with even less evidence behind it. You cite Trump's rally size...you realize that over 300 million people live in America right? Even if Trump was able to put together a rally of 3 million people...it would represent a portion of the America population less than 1%. Gary Johnson could have pulled his voters together and held a rally of that size. If you honestly think rally size is an indication of support...I think we may be done here. You may lack the mathematical and statistical ability to accurately decipher the magnitude of the numbers we are speaking on.
First of all, EOs are policy ACTION devices ... as you said. They do not determine policy - they implement it. The president SUGGESTS policy, but does not dictate it.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. CNN poll size = 530 people.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. Anti-Trump rally in Chicago = 173 people, in New York = 300 people. You tell me.
Don't you worry your little head about my mathematical ability.
You know we had this little thing called an election...which is pretty much like a poll in itself. In case you missed it, the majority of people did not vote for Trump in that election. Furthermore, the popular results of the election...which did include many millions of Americans...were shockingly similar to the majority of the polls across the nation. It was only since we do not hold a popular election (rather an electoral one), that Trump won.
Again, I'm not going to assert that polls are the end all be all, but they are shown to be reliable. Rallies, in which only are for people who supposedly support a candidate or person...are both biased, and small in sample size in comparison to that "election" thing we had.
The majority of the people did not vote for Clinton, either ---- what's your point?
Most Americans do not support Clinton...the exact same would be true for her if she was elected and tried to bully through policies instead of trying to unite the great social divide occurring in America. I never said anything different.
Right...because Conservatives were so happy with Obama when he didn't address their policies. In fact, the nation really came together with Obama ignoring roughly half of the population.Do you remember the original point of this whole discussion? It was that Trump is not trying to unite America, but is bullying his way forward regardless of the fact that most Americans do not support him.A President's "suggestion" is strong enough to rally most members of his party behind him. It is why when we have a President and Congress with the same party in power...they tend to move rather rapidly through the "suggestions" given to them. However, as he lacks formal authority I won't really argue too much on this point as long as you realize the reality of the situation...which is that the president leads his party in their policy initiatives.If you don't think that a President dictates policy...you must have missed the last 100 years of American politics. There are things called EO's that are direct policy action devices. Furthermore, in our modern setting, the sitting party in Congress tries to work in tandem with the direction given by the president. I'm not sure if you are just uninformed or maliciously conflating what is a commonly known issue. President leads policy. This has been even more true in recent years due to the morass of Congress and their noted inability to do anything on their own.
You are justifiable to call into question the validity of polls. However, you cannot do so and then assert an claim with even less evidence behind it. You cite Trump's rally size...you realize that over 300 million people live in America right? Even if Trump was able to put together a rally of 3 million people...it would represent a portion of the America population less than 1%. Gary Johnson could have pulled his voters together and held a rally of that size. If you honestly think rally size is an indication of support...I think we may be done here. You may lack the mathematical and statistical ability to accurately decipher the magnitude of the numbers we are speaking on.
First of all, EOs are policy ACTION devices ... as you said. They do not determine policy - they implement it. The president SUGGESTS policy, but does not dictate it.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. CNN poll size = 530 people.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. Anti-Trump rally in Chicago = 173 people, in New York = 300 people. You tell me.
Don't you worry your little head about my mathematical ability.
You know we had this little thing called an election...which is pretty much like a poll in itself. In case you missed it, the majority of people did not vote for Trump in that election. Furthermore, the popular results of the election...which did include many millions of Americans...were shockingly similar to the majority of the polls across the nation. It was only since we do not hold a popular election (rather an electoral one), that Trump won.
Again, I'm not going to assert that polls are the end all be all, but they are shown to be reliable. Rallies, in which only are for people who supposedly support a candidate or person...are both biased, and small in sample size in comparison to that "election" thing we had.
The majority of the people did not vote for Clinton, either ---- what's your point?
Most Americans do not support Clinton...the exact same would be true for her if she was elected and tried to bully through policies instead of trying to unite the great social divide occurring in America. I never said anything different.
If you could hear how pathetic you sound you'd be ashamed of yourself.
In typical Liberal fashion you're essentially asking to be coddled and comforted by your President, you want him to put your pacifier back in your mouth each time you spit it out, you want him to wipe your ass when your done...you sound like a sackless pussy.
Trump isn't stupid enough to believe there is anything he could say to "rally" his critics to get on board. If he told you the sky was blue you'd call him a liar and argue the shade of blue.
Let this sink in; Trump is acting on behalf of and carrying out the will of his supporters. If you don't like it...too bad. What you refer to as "bullying through policy" we see as aggressively making shit happen. Grab your balls and learn to appreciate a President and leader who isn't afraid to do the right thing and who doesn't get stuck in that single file line of status quo. Stop being so afraid of the higher grade society to come. You'll be okay.
You're a LWNJ.....Right...because Conservatives were so happy with Obama when he didn't address their policies. In fact, the nation really came together with Obama ignoring roughly half of the population.Do you remember the original point of this whole discussion? It was that Trump is not trying to unite America, but is bullying his way forward regardless of the fact that most Americans do not support him.A President's "suggestion" is strong enough to rally most members of his party behind him. It is why when we have a President and Congress with the same party in power...they tend to move rather rapidly through the "suggestions" given to them. However, as he lacks formal authority I won't really argue too much on this point as long as you realize the reality of the situation...which is that the president leads his party in their policy initiatives.First of all, EOs are policy ACTION devices ... as you said. They do not determine policy - they implement it. The president SUGGESTS policy, but does not dictate it.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. CNN poll size = 530 people.
Trump's rally = 20,000 people. Anti-Trump rally in Chicago = 173 people, in New York = 300 people. You tell me.
Don't you worry your little head about my mathematical ability.
You know we had this little thing called an election...which is pretty much like a poll in itself. In case you missed it, the majority of people did not vote for Trump in that election. Furthermore, the popular results of the election...which did include many millions of Americans...were shockingly similar to the majority of the polls across the nation. It was only since we do not hold a popular election (rather an electoral one), that Trump won.
Again, I'm not going to assert that polls are the end all be all, but they are shown to be reliable. Rallies, in which only are for people who supposedly support a candidate or person...are both biased, and small in sample size in comparison to that "election" thing we had.
The majority of the people did not vote for Clinton, either ---- what's your point?
Most Americans do not support Clinton...the exact same would be true for her if she was elected and tried to bully through policies instead of trying to unite the great social divide occurring in America. I never said anything different.
If you could hear how pathetic you sound you'd be ashamed of yourself.
In typical Liberal fashion you're essentially asking to be coddled and comforted by your President, you want him to put your pacifier back in your mouth each time you spit it out, you want him to wipe your ass when your done...you sound like a sackless pussy.
Trump isn't stupid enough to believe there is anything he could say to "rally" his critics to get on board. If he told you the sky was blue you'd call him a liar and argue the shade of blue.
Let this sink in; Trump is acting on behalf of and carrying out the will of his supporters. If you don't like it...too bad. What you refer to as "bullying through policy" we see as aggressively making shit happen. Grab your balls and learn to appreciate a President and leader who isn't afraid to do the right thing and who doesn't get stuck in that single file line of status quo. Stop being so afraid of the higher grade society to come. You'll be okay.
How could I have been so stupid! Of course Trump shouldn't be paying attention to half the nation, it worked so well for Obama and really made America Great! Wow you really have shown me the error of my ways! If somebody disagrees with you...its their fault and they just need to get with the program! Of course!
As an aside, I'm a moderate...so I would be fine with Trump just being a sane president and not trying to actively divide America...unfortunately he seems to be working against foundational American ideals...like, you know, "We are one people"...that sort of thing.
