Traveler

Impeachment question for experts

Recommended Posts

Just now, Scott said:

It's not only with leaders, but with the general population.  Almost none of the general polulation likes Trump.  I haven't met even one yet and that includes travels to the UK, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Saba, Sint Maarten, Saint Marten, St Eustatius, and Morocco, all of which I have visited since last year.  I'll be in Spain the day after tomorrow.  

It isn't just among world leaders.  In all these countries, I haven't met even one person who has said something positive about Trump.  Not even one.  Rest assured though, I have heard plenty of negative.  Of course the disapproval is towards are president and not all Americans.   

We've talked about that before.  You keep on talking about people you meet and keep ignoring the Brexit wipeout, the yellow vests in France, the rising fight against entrenched globalists to be replaced by nationalists all over Europe even in the little country of Iceland...

Look at all the media you have in Europe.  They are all anti Trump.  But it still does not change the fact that Brexit just happened.  And to say Brexit is anti-Trump is... well, there are no words for that but naivete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It never stopped, so it couldn't have "worsened".

Violations increased after the US pull out.  This has been confirmed by the AIEA.

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Because Iran refused to sit on the table.  The negotiations consisted of - "you do this, we'll do that" promises that Iran continues to ignore like it always has since the 70's.

Then why do you say that "Trump pulling out of the JCPOA brought the negotiation cards back in the hands of the USA".

What negotiation cards are back in the hands of the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott said:

I doubt Obama did this to benefit the Muslim Brotherhood.  Why would he do that?

Ask Obama.  Nobody else does.  Not even political journalists whose job it is to figure out the truth of all these things. 

The fact remains - Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient hailed worldwide as an anti-war hero, supported Morsi, wiped out Gaddafi, deposed the leadership in Yemen, and tried to depose Assad.  Add them all together and what do you get?

 

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

As a side note, the Arab Spring was positive for some places, such as Tunisia, but few want to remember that.

Tunisia in exchange for Libya then?  That's your position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, anatess2 said:

We've talked about that before.  You keep on talking about people you meet and keep ignoring the Brexit wipeout, the yellow vests in France, the rising fight against entrenched globalists to be replaced by nationalists all over Europe even in the little country of Iceland...

Just because people support things like Brexit doesn't mean that they like Trump.

Just now, anatess2 said:

Look at all the media you have in Europe. 

I'm talking about people on the street, not the media.

But it still does not change the fact that Brexit just happened.

And Brexit doesn't change the fact that most people in Europe (or the rest of the world) don't like Trump.

And to say Brexit is anti-Trump is... well, there are no words for that but naivete.

People didn't support Brexit because of Trump and no one said that Brexit was anti-Trump.

People dont like Trump for several reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Violations increased after the US pull out.  This has been confirmed by the AIEA.

Violations did not stop before the US pull out.  Whether it increased is irrelevant.

 

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Then why do you say that "Trump pulling out of the JCPOA brought the negotiation cards back in the hands of the USA".

What negotiation cards are back in the hands of the USA?

Scott, it's like gun control.  Gun control only works for law-abiding citizens.  So, if you're in a fire-fight, the good guys' hands are tied with the gun control because abiding by the law is important, while the bad guys continue to shoot at you.  The only way you can stop the bad guys from shooting at you is to get out of the gun control legislation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The fact remains - Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient hailed worldwide as an anti-war hero, supported Morsi, wiped out Gaddafi, deposed the leadership in Yemen, and tried to depose Assad.  Add them all together and what do you get?

I don't buy that he did these things to support the Muslim brotherhood.  I also don't agree with getting involved with any of it other than wiping out ISIS and al Qaeda.  Some of it was done to suck up to the Saudis as well.

Libya especially was stupid.

I don't agree with Obama's handling of any of the above, but Trump isn't the anti war hero you are making him to be either.  With the exception of perhaps pulling out of Syria, he's continuing the same wars.

(PS, I also don't believe Trump's claim that ISIS has been defeated, so we'll probably be back in Syria soon enough).

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Tunisia in exchange for Libya then?  That's your position?

No.  I said Tunisia was a positive that came out of the Arab Spring.  Do you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scott said:

Just because people support things like Brexit doesn't mean that they like Trump.

Oh... we're in "like".  Not approve or respected.  Why do you want to be "liked"?  Do you think the English "liked" George Washinton?  Does it MATTER?  Of course, not.  Obama was "liked".  A lot of good that brought America.

 

Quote

I'm talking about people on the street, not the media.

People on the street is anecdotal.  The evidence is things such as Brexit.

 

Quote

And Brexit doesn't change the fact that most people in Europe (or the rest of the world) don't like Trump.

People didn't support Brexit because of Trump and no one said that Brexit was anti-Trump.

There's that "like" again.  You don't have to "like" Trump.  But supporting Brexit in its current form of the possibility of a No Deal without siding with Trump is a death knell to the British economy.  Brexit - especially this last election - is a firm testimony on the British people throwing their trust on Trump's trade promises than the EU.  

 

Quote

 

People dont like Trump for several reasons.

Tons of people who voted for Trump don't like Trump for several reasons.  Sitting on the Executive Seat of the most important country in the world is not one of them.  I don't like Trump for several reasons.  But I sure do like Trump as the President of the USA.  I don't like Duterte for several reasons - being President of the Philippines at this time is not one of them.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Oh... we're in "like".  Not approve or respected.  Why do you want to be "liked"?  Do you think the English "liked" George Washinton?  Does it MATTER?  Of course, not.  Obama was "liked".  A lot of good that brought America.

George Washington wasn't an ally to the English, so no it didn't matter.

I'm talking about our allies and yes it does matter.  Thing like trust and respect do matter when it comes to uniting pur allies towards a common goal.

Quote

People on the street is anecdotal.  The evidence is things such as Brexit.

The Brexit vote was before Trump even got elected and he had nothing to do with Brexit.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't buy that he did these things to support the Muslim brotherhood.  I also don't agree with getting involved with any of it other than wiping out ISIS and al Qaeda.  Some of it was done to suck up to the Saudis as well.

Libya especially was stupid.

I don't agree with Obama's handling of any of the above,

These are new wars, my friend.

 

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

but Trump isn't the anti war hero you are making him to be either.  With the exception of perhaps pulling out of Syria, he's continuing the same wars.

You like putting words in my mouth.  I never said Trump is an anti-war hero.  He's only been on the seat for 3 years, most of which he spent fighting Congress and having his hands tied with this Russia collusion hoax.  His first military act finished off the al-Awlaki family with the death of the 8-year-old kid.  His first media-raved act was a MOAB.  

But I'm giving him the benefit of finishing off his first - and hopefully 2nd - term before I make judgment because I know all these things he inherited from previous administrations and it takes a long time to shift the direction of a foreign policy ship.  Especially when you have entrenched CIA, NSA, and FBI operatives and members of your own Congress working against you, sabotaging your foreign policy.

As I've stated over and over... We'll see.

 

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

(PS, I also don't believe Trump's claim that ISIS has been defeated, so we'll probably be back in Syria soon enough).

Maybe.  We'll see.  So far, I like what Trump is doing in Syria.

 

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

No.  I said Tunisia was a positive that came out of the Arab Spring.  Do you agree?

Sure.  But then the US did not involve itself with Tunisia's regime change. 

Rather, the US involved itself in these countries:
Egypt - US supported Morsi.  Egypt had to undergo another revolution to take out Morsi. 

Libya - US deposed Gaddafi.  Benghazi ensued.  It's still a mess.

Yemen - US supported Hadi.  Still a mess.

Syria - US opposed Assad.  Still a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

I'm talking about our allies and yes it does matter.  Thing like trust and respect do matter when it comes to uniting pur allies towards a common goal.

Trust and Respect is not the same as "Like".  You don't have to like someone to trust and respect someone.  For example - I didn't like Reagan.  But I had much respect for Reagan.

And just because you like someone, and even trust and respect him, doesn't mean you're going to side with someone.  For example - Trump likes Xi and even respects him.  Trump has no problem waging a trade war with Xi.  I love my uncle, I wholeheartedly trust and respect him and know his heart is in the right place.  I wouldn't have voted for him as President against Duterte.

The fact of the matter is - everywhere Trump goes, he gets his protesters, but he also gets the red carpet rolled for him in pomp and ceremony.   The economic summits showed Trump being treated like a celebrity amidst all the fanboys.  You got your silly heads of states - like Trudeau - jockying for who gets to be the silliest Trump disrespecter.  And you got heads of state like Poland jockying for Trump's ear.  Then you got Hongkong protesters sporting MAGA paraphernalia.

 

Quote

The Brexit vote was before Trump even got elected and he had nothing to do with Brexit.

The first Brexit vote was made even with Obama saying "you're going to the back of the line" because the British relied on the Tories to make a trade deal with the EU prior to the exit.  This was hailed by the media as an "ignorant vote" that people didn't understand the ramifications of, etc. etc.

The Tories failed to make any sensible deal with the EU over and over and over. 

This last Brexit was a Brexit that included a No Deal with Johnson expressing that they will enter bilateral negotiations with Trump and Trump welcoming such negotiations and pro-Trump Farage assuring regions he flipped to the Brexit or Tory Parties of deals with the USA.  It won in a landslide.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You like putting words in my mouth.  I never said Trump is an anti-war hero. 

It seems that imply that he has been more reluctant towards war than past presidents.  That's not what I am seeing. 

So far, I like what Trump is doing in Syria.

So do I.  North Korea too, but it doesn't seem like it will go anywhere.

Indo not approve of how he has been handling Iran though (and I'm not just speaking of the most recent events) and I do not approve of his rhetoric with our allies.  Our true allies.

Sure.  But then the US did not involve itself with Tunisia's regime change.

Exactly.

Libya - US deposed Gaddafi.  Benghazi ensued.  It's still a mess.

Agreed.  Libya actually seemed to be moving in a positive direction before the desposement.

Yemen - US supported Hadi.  Still a mess.

Agreed, but this is a tough one.  Yemen is the only one that seems to be a tough decision.

Syria - US opposed Assad.  Still a mess.

Strongly agreed.  I don't know what our leaders (including Obama) were thinking.  So what was the plan if Assad was disposed?  Let ISIS take over?   Try to force a pro-US democracy on the country (which would be an epic fail)?    Seriously, what was the plan?  Assad hasn't done anything to the US.  Is he a dictator?  Yes, but he's better than the alternative.  Russia has been arming supporting Assad and is the opposition.  Why?  I understand Russia's incentive to support Assad, but I can't think of one thing the US has to gain by deposing Assad.  If the IS didnt support the opposition, my opinion is that Assad and Russia would have ended the Syrian War a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scott said:

It seems that imply that he has been more reluctant towards war than past presidents.  That's not what I am seeing. 

Ah.  So, the MSM yipping at him for not striking Iran after downing the US drone... the MSM yipping at him for pulling out from Syria and refusing to strike Turkey... all that was just, what... a movie?

How many wars did Bush start on his 1st term?  How many wars did Obama start on his 1st term?  How many wars did Trump start?

 

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

So do I.  North Korea too, but it doesn't seem like it will go anywhere.

It not going anywhere is better than his past 2 predecessors.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Indo not approve of how he has been handling Iran though (and I'm not just speaking of the most recent events) and I do not approve of his rhetoric with our allies.  Our true allies.

Iran is no worse than it was before unlike what you keep on claiming.

People who don't like his communication style doesn't like his rhetoric, domestic, foreign, allies, or otherwise.

There are 2 types of alliances - military allies and economic allies.  Trump is changing the economic and military paradigm.  This is to be expected when you have a President that promised a drastic change a half-century long US foreign policy - a change that is the main reason I supported (and continue to support) the guy.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Strongly agreed.  I don't know what our leaders (including Obama) were thinking.  So what was the plan if Assad was disposed?  Let ISIS take over?   Try to force a pro-US democracy on the country (which would be an epic fail)?    Seriously, what was the plan?  Assad hasn't done anything to the US.  Is he a dictator?  Yes, but he's better than the alternative.  Russia has been arming supporting Assad and is the opposition.  Why?  I understand Russia's incentive to support Assad, but I can't think of one thing the US has to gain by deposing Assad.  If the IS didnt support the opposition, my opinion is that Assad and Russia would have ended the Syrian War a long time ago.

Welcome to your Nobel Peace Prize Winning President who you think is doing a great job with Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Trust and Respect is not the same as "Like". 

You're right, but most of the world (including our allies) do not trust or respect Trump.  I can promise you this.  Also, it's hard to trust and respect someone who is insulting you and making outlandish claims.

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

You don't have to like someone to trust and respect someone.  For example - I didn't like Reagan.  But I had much respect for Reagan.

Different topic, but Reagan is the one who more than any other US leader was responsible for arming and supporting terrorists groups, including the predecessors of the ones we are fighting now.  He also armed and supported Iraq and even armed Iran, along with other brutal dictatorships. 

PS, I already know that it was the Carter Administration who started Operation Cyclone, but it was Reagan who really accelerated it.

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

The first Brexit vote was made even with Obama saying "you're going to the back of the line" because the British relied on the Tories to make a trade deal with the EU prior to the exit. 

The US leaders should keep their mouths shut about it.  Brexit is the UK's concern and no one else's.  Perhaps we agree on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott said:

You're right, but most of the world (including our allies) do not trust or respect Trump.  I can promise you this.  Also, it's hard to trust and respect someone who is insulting you and making outlandish claims.

I'm still not sure you're not getting your impressions from the BBC and its ilk worldwide.

In any case, the US shouldn't have to worry about whether other countries trust or respect them.  This is no popularity contest.  It's not a requirement to live peaceably nor does it determine who is good or bad for its people.

 

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Different topic, but Reagan is the one who more than any other US leader was responsible for arming and supporting terrorists groups, including the predecessors of the ones we are fighting now.  He also armed and supported Iraq and even armed Iran, along with other brutal dictatorships. 

PS, I already know that it was the Carter Administration who started Operation Cyclone, but it was Reagan who really accelerated it.

I know a lot of people hail Reagan as this great conservative President.  I'm not one of them.  But yes, I believe Reagan was much better than Carter.

 

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

The US leaders should keep their mouths shut about it.  Brexit is the UK's concern and no one else's.  Perhaps we agree on this.

Of course.  Just like I believe that any other country liking Trump is irrelevant to the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ah.  So, the MSM yipping at him for not striking Iran after downing the US drone... the MSM yipping at him for pulling out from Syria and refusing to strike Turkey... all that was just, what... a movie?

Meh.  I'll believe Trump is reluctant towards war when I see him cut the military budget and start pulling out the the Middle East.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should help protect our allies, and by allies I mean those that share our values.  We aren't obligated to protect anyone who doesn't share our values.

We don't need to increase the military budget to protect our own county.  We have plenty of resources to do that.

Quote

How many wars did Bush start on his 1st term? 

Too many.

Quote

How many wars did Obama start on his 1st term? 

Too many.

Quote

How many wars did Trump start?

It not going anywhere is better than his past 2 predecessors.

I'd like to see him end more.   

The US is addicted to war.  The British Empire used to be all over the place, but we seem incapable of pulling out of a lot of places.

Quote

Iran is no worse than it was before unlike what you keep on claiming.

We won't agree on this and it is worse now since the chances of another negotiation are slimmer.

If the nuclear deal really was as bad as you claim, it should have been renegotiated.

Quote

Welcome to your Nobel Peace Prize Winning President who you think is doing a great job with Iran.

A great job?  No way.  An OK job?  Maybe.

And as mentioned I strongly disapprove with Obama's handling of Syria.

So far, I haven't seen anything we disagree with at all on Syria.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scott said:

Meh.  I'll believe Trump is reluctant towards war when I see him cut the military budget   

You don't want to do that.  If you want to streamline your military, sure.  But cutting it to reduce military strength.  BAD IDEA.  If you don't want a war, you put a fortress on the sound and put hundreds of cannons on the parapet.  Then nobody will try to start a war with you.

 

Quote

 

and start pulling out the the Middle East.

We'll see.  So far, he has not made more wars yet which is a change from the past 5 Presidents.

 

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I think we should help protect our allies, and by allies I mean those that share our values.  We aren't obligated to protect anyone who doesn't share our values.

You shouldn't protect people who are not willing to protect themselves.  That's one Trumpism that is solid.  If a coalition refuses to pay up for their own defense while spending all this money on climate change and "equality"... there's no need for the US to continue to fund that alliance.

 

Quote

We don't need to increase the military budget to protect our own county.  We have plenty of resources to do that.

I generally don't try to run the Pentagon the way I see fit... I don't know anything about how a military is run to make it the strongest military on the planet.  But one thing is certain - funding a strong military is the PRIMARY purpose of having a Federal government.  Everything else is icing.  So if your Federal government is spending money - it is better spent on the military than anywhere else.

 

Quote

If the nuclear deal really was as bad as you claim, it should have been renegotiated.

You can't renegotiate when there's an existing agreement and there's no incentive for the other party to change it.  You first have to end the current negotiation so you can apply pressure to cause the other party to renegotiate.

 

Quote

A great job?  No way.  An OK job?  Maybe.

And as mentioned I strongly disapprove with Obama's handling of Syria.

 

I didn't like Bush, Clinton, W Bush.  But I'd vote for all 3 of them over Obama.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But one thing is certain - funding a strong military is the PRIMARY purpose of having a Federal government.  Everything else is icing.  So if your Federal government is spending money - it is better spent on the military than anywhere else.

Trump just approved $738 Billion in military spending for 2020.

We're already off the charts for military spending:

military-spending-budgets.thumb.jpg.00266c6bcec337443d2fde3deb562816.jpg

Even if the budget was cut, we'd still have the biggest, baddest, most powerful military in the world and more than enough to protect ourselves.

What we don't need is to spend billions on military operations that have nothing to do with protecting our country (or our true allies-if they truly needed it).

The war in Syria and trying to dispose of Assad is a good example.

We could cut the budget and still protect ourselves just fine.

How much of the military budget is used to actually protect ourselves?  Not that much.

Quote

You shouldn't protect people who are not willing to protect themselves. 

I agree.

I'm not against countries spending money on those programs if they choose to, but they should also pay more for their defense.

Quote

That's one Trumpism that is solid

it depends on who it is.  Trump has taken a hardline stance towards Europe, but not Israel or Saudi.  Saudi spends a lot on military, but they are reluctant to lift a finger when they should and want the US to do their fighting for them.

Israel has the same social programs that Europe does, but we still give them a lot of aid.  Trump hasn't said anything against Israel for that.

I don't know what Trump's plan for Japan is.    He says Japan should pay more, but the current treaty could be a roadblock for that.   I haven't heard of his plans for Japan other than saying they should pay more.

I didn't like Bush, Clinton, W Bush.  But I'd vote for all 3 of them over Obama.

I'd vote for Bush 1 over Obama.  If it weren't for his personal life, Clinton too.  Bush II though, no way, even though I did vote for him the 1st time around.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On military spending:  a reservist colleague of mine who recently finished a tour at the Pentagon doing high muckety-muck stuff for the joint chiefs, warns not to conflate spending with military ability—much of our budget is consumed by salaries.  China has more deployable men, more tanks, more artillery, more ships, more submarines, more fighter planes—and more of pretty much everything under construction—than we do; and what we do have is spread much thinner.  And qualitatively—their equipment is getting much, much better.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On military spending:  a reservist colleague of mine who recently finished a tour at the Pentagon doing high muckety-muck stuff for the joint chiefs, warns not to conflate spending with military ability—much of our budget is consumed by salaries.  China has more deployable men, more tanks, more artillery, more ships, more submarines, more fighter planes—and more of pretty much everything under construction—than we do; and what we do have is spread much thinner.  And qualitatively—their equipment is getting much, much better.

Our salaries are better. Take that China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On military spending:  a reservist colleague of mine who recently finished a tour at the Pentagon doing high muckety-muck stuff for the joint chiefs, warns not to conflate spending with military ability—much of our budget is consumed by salaries.  China has more deployable men, more tanks, more artillery, more ships, more submarines, more fighter planes—and more of pretty much everything under construction—than we do; and what we do have is spread much thinner.  And qualitatively—their equipment is getting much, much better.

China won't attack us, at least not in our lifetime. They are much smarter than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

China won't attack us, at least not in our lifetime. They are much smarter than that. 

No, but they can persuade us to not get involved as they swallow up Taiwan and set up client states throughout the western Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa—and taking control the world’s busiest shopping lanes for good measure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Scott said:

It's not only with leaders, but with the general population.  Almost none of the general polulation likes Trump.  I haven't met even one yet and that includes travels to the UK, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Saba, Sint Maarten, Saint Marten, St Eustatius, and Morocco, all of which I have visited since last year.  I'll be in Spain the day after tomorrow.  

It isn't just among world leaders.  In all these countries, I haven't met even one person who has said something positive about Trump.  Not even one.  Rest assured though, I have heard plenty of negative.  Of course the disapproval is towards are president and not all Americans.   

My family was in England last April and actually stayed with several English families. We were always asked how we felt about Trump.  We met quite a few people who love Trump. It surprised me because I was under the impression that most Europeans hated Trump. Those that I met who loved Trump were also for Brexit and quite conservative. They see their country as failing and to them immigration was a big part of it. They feel they are losing their culture. They don’t dare let their daughters even go shopping alone because of the fear of rape by the immigrants. Those who loved Trump are glad he is stirring the pot. They are tired of having to keep their mouths shut because it isn’t “politically correct” and because anything they say against the immigrants is considered racist. Housing prices are expensive. They blamed that on the immigration policies. The immigrants get the housing and there is very little left for the Brits. Young people can’t afford housing, etc. We had some great political conversations. My experience must have been different than yours.

When I travelled to Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and France this year I didn’t have the opportunity to get into politics with anyone.  A couple of years ago I was able to visit a friend in Germany and she and her husband and adult sons liked Trump. I think Europeans are very similar to US citizens. If you listen to the news almost everything you hear is negative about Trump and everyone hating him, but if you start talking to some of the regular folks, and they feel like you won’t ridicule them, they will start to tell you what they like about Trump. Many Europeans are tired of the liberal policies and are afraid of where their leaders are taking their countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
6 hours ago, classylady said:

It surprised me because I was under the impression that most Europeans hated Trump

The media likes to portray that, but like you found out, the truth is more complicated.

It's the same with Canadians. I was under the impression that they hated Bush, loved Obama, etc. Then I was talking with one online who said "Tim, we elected Stephan Harper and Rob Ford. Not all of us are liberals." 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, classylady said:

 I was under the impression that most Europeans hated Trump.

Pew Research usually has the most reliable figures available.  The polls are from the general population  and not leaders. You can see the charts as of 10/2018 below:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/09/how-the-world-views-the-u-s-and-its-president-in-9-charts/

20200107_151753.thumb.jpg.a916219fce1f6f0dff97233338e609ba.jpg

So yes, some Europeans have confidence in Trump, but it is very few.  The vast majority do not.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

Pew Research usually has the most reliable figures available.  The polls are from the general population  and not leaders. You can see the charts as of 10/2018 below:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/09/how-the-world-views-the-u-s-and-its-president-in-9-charts/

20200107_151753.thumb.jpg.a916219fce1f6f0dff97233338e609ba.jpg

So yes, some Europeans have confidence in Trump, but it is very few.  The vast majority do not.

 

Pew Research is still working on adjusting their polling process after the "age of Trump".  Just like they haven't been able to predict the 2016 US election and the real public sentiment, they haven't been able to accurately predict much of the political sentiments after that either.  Election after election worldwide, caucus after caucus, canvass after canvass... polls, including Pew Research, have missed predictions over and over.  

So, for me, in the new age of the global superhighway, election results, economic tides, political posturing, remain a better measure of the real public sentiment than polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now