Jump to content

SURVEY: Do you want Trump to finish his first term?


SURVEY: Do you WANT Trump to finish his first term?  

479 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, most people of both politcal parties do want the rich to pay more in taxes, not less.

Most Americans want to raise taxes on the rich: poll

As President Donald Trump promotes a tax plan that critics say would raise the federal deficit by slashing corporate rates and eliminating some taxes paid by the rich, some three-quarters of Americans believe the wealthiest should pay more, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows.

https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/most-americans-want-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-poll/

 

And as for illegal immigrants, there's this:

Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Large majorities of voters favor granting work permits or citizenship to illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, according to the latest Fox News poll.

Sixty-two percent say it is extremely or very important Congress pass immigration law that will address the Dreamers. Voters think this is more important than passing new health care (58 percent important) or tax reform legislation (52 percent).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/28/fox-news-poll-83-percent-support-pathway-to-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants.html

 

 

Polls show Americans are closer to Democrats than Donald Trump on immigration

Not surprising.  The MAGA crowd are vague about when they think America was great, but one gets the sense that it was at a time with unions were strong, income disparity was much lower, and the top income tax rate was 70%.  Republicans aren't fans of any of these things.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

I so wish we could just have a flat tax. Everyone pays the same. From the lowest wage to the highest. No more loop holes.

 

It's fine to address the so called dreamers, just don't give the store away. 

Supplement your flat tax with a wealth tax and I might be with you.

Posted
4 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

It's fine to address the so called dreamers, just don't give the store away. 

Well as you took the store clean away from it's rightful owners, there should be no problem sharing some of it out.

Posted
Not surprising.  The MAGA crowd are vague about when they think America was great, but one gets the sense that it was at a time with unions were strong, income disparity was much lower, and the top income tax rate was 70%.  Republicans aren't fans of any of these things.
You're being too generous. For a good portion of them their perverted nostalgia is about Jim Crow laws, non uppity stay at home women, and gays cowering in the closet. The "trump" movement is evil.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

  • Like 1
Posted

 

Quote

Trump fires Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

Oh Dear. I bet Rex is glad he gave up the most powerful, well paid oilman's job in the world to work with Trump.

 

Quote

President Donald Trump has fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, replacing him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

With Mr Pompeo moving, CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel will take over the running of that department.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-rex-tillerson-fired-secretary-state-cia-director-mike-pompeo-latest-news-a8253491.html

 

Trump really is running this like a reality TV show, what with his pathetic show in Pennsylvania and now this it should shape up to be another week when news anchors don't know what's coming next.

Posted

No chaos to see here folks. Yeah that's the ticket. Respect to Tillerson. Getting fired by this potus obviously for pushing back too much on his nuttiness is an honor!

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Posted
22 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

President Trump fires Rex Tillerson: Live updates

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politics/trump-tillerson-latest/index.html

 

Just before he was ousted as secretary of State, Rex Tillersonhad cast the poisoning of an ex-spy in Britain as part of a "certain unleashing of activity" by Russia that the United States is struggling to understand – diverging from the White House's official response.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/tillerson-poison-used-on-ex-spy-came-from-russia.html

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"2A is to fight against tyranny and oppression. Can’t do that with a bolt action rifle and a pistol with (insert arbitrary ammo limit)."

 

I agree that you can't take on tanks with a bolt action rifle and a pistol.  You also can't take on tanks with an AR15.  In fact an AR15 isn't good for much beyond carnage.

 

As I pointed out earlier in replying to one of your posts, the Second Amendment was written at a time when civilian arms were as good as or better than military arms.  Well organized civilian militias with civilian arms could present a serious challenge to regular armies in the eighteenth century.  That is no longer true.  The Second Amendment is obsolete, it no longer serves a useful purpose.

 

Polls show that the majority of Americans do want sensible gun control.  However lobbying by the NRA and the clout of single-issue voters is preventing Congress from doing what the majority wants.  That is not unusual.

The VC and ISIS?  They beat or are beating gun technology and technical superiority.. 

Posted
37 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Yeah, no. 

 

Its “well regulated militia” and in old-speak it means “well equipped”. 

 

And LOL at you somehow equating 2A as being temporary. 

 

You need to provide a credible source for your "old-speak" claim.  So far you give the impression of someone who makes stuff up and posts it as fact.

 

The Founding Fathers knew they could not predict the future, that's why they included a mechanism for changing the constitution.  Had they been able to foresee the lethality and affordability of modern weapons available to civilians, and the orders of magnitude greater lethality of modern military weapons, they would have written the constitution differently.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Poor people already pay regressive taxes like sales taxes.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I understand that.  That's why I think a wealth tax is in order, a tax based on an individual's net worth.

Posted

An off-topic post has been removed and a whole lot of replies.   Please try to stay a little closer to the topic at hand.   Arguing gun control in this thread is a little too far afield.  

Posted
58 minutes ago, The manic said:

The VC and ISIS?  They beat or are beating gun technology and technical superiority.. 

I'm not sure what your point is.  The VC helped to destabilize an unpopular South Vietnam government, but it was the North Vietnamese army that ultimately took control of the south.  ISIS took advantage of chaos in Syria and incompetence in the Iraq military to temporarily seize and loot territory.  Neither the VC nor ISIS were fighting tyranny.

 

Edit:  Agreed, this is getting far off-topic.  The only link is that Trump is pandering to the NRA and gun-nuts, to the detriment of the country.

Posted
1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

 

Just before he was ousted as secretary of State, Rex Tillersonhad cast the poisoning of an ex-spy in Britain as part of a "certain unleashing of activity" by Russia that the United States is struggling to understand – diverging from the White House's official response.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/tillerson-poison-used-on-ex-spy-came-from-russia.html

 

One can't help but wonder if Tillerson's bad-mouthing Russia is what pushed Trump over the edge.

Posted

musical chairs,I'm getting dizzy lol .Pompeo is a super star from West Point ,#1 in his class . Staunch republican ,Awesome CIA head.Gonna miss Rex! All my liberal friends(2) liked Rex.

 

Bad timing though ,I think it gives fire to the PA election for Congressman  

Posted
10 hours ago, heybruce said:

"2A is to fight against tyranny and oppression. Can’t do that with a bolt action rifle and a pistol with (insert arbitrary ammo limit)."

 

I agree that you can't take on tanks with a bolt action rifle and a pistol.  You also can't take on tanks with an AR15.  In fact an AR15 isn't good for much beyond carnage.

 

As I pointed out earlier in replying to one of your posts, the Second Amendment was written at a time when civilian arms were as good as or better than military arms.  Well organized civilian militias with civilian arms could present a serious challenge to regular armies in the eighteenth century.  That is no longer true.  The Second Amendment is obsolete, it no longer serves a useful purpose.

 

Polls show that the majority of Americans do want sensible gun control.  However lobbying by the NRA and the clout of single-issue voters is preventing Congress from doing what the majority wants.  That is not unusual.

 

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

Posted
8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

There is another process for doing that called creating a new amendment or something like that. The point is you don't need a constitutional convention to change the constitution. In point of fact, the constitution has been amended many times but not once by a constitutional convention.

Posted
15 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

 

I disagree with Heybruce but I DO agree with going after the amendment. If they want change then go after the amendment instead if infringing on rights. At least then it’ll really legitimate. Not illegitimate incrementalism based on lies and revisionist history. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

It would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy for the Republicans to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment when they are running trillion dollar deficits, but I wouldn't put it past them.  Regardless, a Constitutional Convention is not required:

 

"Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, heybruce said:

It would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy for the Republicans to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment when they are running trillion dollar deficits, but I wouldn't put it past them.  Regardless, a Constitutional Convention is not required:

 

"Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

 

You can amend the Constitution that way and it has been done, but it is not going to happen again in our lifetimes. I personally prefer a method that is closest to the local constituencies.

Posted

In bellwether election in the Pittsburgh area congressional district that "trump" won by TWENTY points, the current results are near a TIE, with the democrat Lamb showing a small lead. Given that, too early to call a winner, but win or lose, the republicans aren't going to like what these results show going into the midterms. 

Posted

OMG, this is ridiculous but I think the more rural areas are yet to come in so maybe that means the republican will pull this out:

 

House District 18
 
97.8% reporting
Candidate Votes PCT
Conor Lamb (D) 107,155 49.8%
Rick Saccone (R) 106,570 49.6%
Posted
59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

OMG, this is ridiculous but I think the more rural areas are yet to come in so maybe that means the republican will pull this out:

 

House District 18
 
97.8% reporting
Candidate Votes PCT
Conor Lamb (D) 107,155 49.8%
Rick Saccone (R) 106,570 49.6%

 

Looks like the kid pulled it out. Done deal or is a recount in the cards?

Posted
1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

OMG, this is ridiculous but I think the more rural areas are yet to come in so maybe that means the republican will pull this out:

 

House District 18
 
97.8% reporting
Candidate Votes PCT
Conor Lamb (D) 107,155 49.8%
Rick Saccone (R) 106,570 49.6%

The rural areas maybe frightened of Trumps tariffs and how China and the EU will react to farm produce so just maybe Trump will lose a few more hairs on his head.

Posted
11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Looks like the kid pulled it out. Done deal or is a recount in the cards?

Not a done deal yet, he is 847 votes ahead but they are still counting the absentee ballots.

Posted
4 minutes ago, wayned said:

Not a done deal yet, he is 847 votes ahead but they are still counting the absentee ballots.

Whatever, it is still a slap in the face for Trump no matter what the outcome. He will get someone to ghost write 'bury my heart in Pittsburgh.'

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...