Polls: Majorities or Pluralities Support ALL of Trump's Executive Orders

[CostinR]

Yep, it's all about "winning". Withdrawing the EO and writing a better one take less time and money than pushing the case in the courts, but Trump is all about "winning".

Is that also obstructionism?

How is fighting a legitimate legal battle in courts obstructionism? Especially one that he can win in court with the very same judge that issued the TRO? In two weeks that very judge can come out and refuse to extend the TRO.

You can complain about the cost, but that's a legitimate use of government money. What should any government back down at the first sign of legal problem?

That is true, but again it isn't exactly good. You'd want broader support than what amounts to just your voting base.

This way beyond his base. Outside those 3 I mention he gets over 60% of people either approving or accepting those actions, being undecided means it doesn't bother you that much.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Because Democrats are not Republicans. The Republican base is stupid, and has been convinced to vote against their own best interests based on a nonsensical book of fairy tales.

Meanwhile the Democratic base consists of the people that actually work and can think for themselves (and thusly have different opinions on presidential candidates and dont just vote for someone "cuz jesus said it wuz raight ter do") and due to a politically antiquated voting system, despite having overwhelming popularity, can lose elections.

My point? America is full of stupid people

Fixed that for ya

- - - Updated - - -

That is true, but again it isn't exactly good. You'd want broader support than what amounts to just your voting base.

You also have to consider WHO is being polled. Go into rural Texas and ask if a 12 billion dollar wall to "keep out the Mexicans" is a good idea will yield very different results then if you did the poll in downtown San Diego. You can run "polls" that can say anything you want them to say

[Deleted]

How is fighting a legitimate legal battle in courts obstructionism? Especially one that he can win in court with the very same judge that issued the TRO?

You can complain about the cost, but that's a legitimate use of government money. What should any government back down at the first sign of legal problem?

Why? Do give a good reason besides "he can win".

[CostinR]

Why? Do give a good reason besides "he can win".

That's all the reason he needs. Everything else is meaningless. In two weeks the very judge that issued the TRO can withdraw it and the travel ban is reinstated.

That's what governments do. Across the board, across party lines. What should the state of Washington NOT fight this battle in court because it could lose? Because they are also spending tax payer money on this as a state. Should no one have bothered taking this EO to court and spent tax payer money on doing so?

The court system exists to do a job, that job costs money. DEAL WITH IT.

[Deleted]

This way beyond his base. Outside those 3 I mention he gets over 60% of people either approving or accepting those actions, being undecided means it doesn't bother you that much.

I wouldn't exactly count undecided, as supporters. Not to mention, it is one thing to favour what kind of executive orders a president does, it is a whole other aspect what their actual implementation and effects will be.

[Deleted]

That's all the reason he needs. Everything else is meaningless. In two weeks the very judge that issued the TRO can withdraw it and the travel ban is reinstated.

That's what governments do. Across the board, across party lines. What should the state of Washington NOT fight this battle in court because it could lose? Because they are also spending tax payer money on this as a state. Should no one have bothered taking this EO to court and spent tax payer money on doing so?

The court system exists to do a job, that job costs money. DEAL WITH IT.

So, no other reason but "winning".

Some other president would rework the poorly written EO, but no, Trump has to win.

[Felya]

One thing they Demcorats should learn is that passing widespread healthcare reform, and doing it badly, after an economic crash and passing bailouts for the big banks makes them lose on every level.

Obama cut TARP in half. Bush passed the bank bailout, Obama cut it in half. You are out of date on your rhetoric. By 2010, the opposition to Obama began saying that the bail out should not have been cut, because the resulting interest on the return was actually a boon to the economy. As in, we got back more than we put in with a bail out.

[CostinR]

So, no other reason but "winning".

Some other president would rework the poorly written EO, but no, Trump has to win.

Every president wants to win, the Democrats want to win, the Republicans want to win. Doing it legally is normal. He has every legal right to do this.

I wouldn't exactly count undecided, as supporters. Not to mention, it is one thing to favour what kind of executive orders a president does, it is a whole other aspect what their actual implementation and effects will be.

I didn't call them supporters. Trump needs to have his actions accepted, and clearly a substantial majority accepts what he's done. They may not like it but they accept his actions.

[Deleted]

I didn't call them supporters. Trump needs to have his actions accepted, and clearly a substantial majority accepts what he's done. They may not like it but they accept his actions.

Well undecided can be a lot of things, from not being informed enough, unsure of the actual implementation etc. etc.. But, I will absolutely agree that < 40 % disapproval is well within acceptable barriers.

But again, a president is more than just his capabilities to write up executive orders, it is the implementation and effects that will be more reflective later on. And some of those EO's can be damaging for the american people, if they are not done properly.

[Felya]

Every president wants to win, the Democrats want to win, the Republicans want to win. Doing it legally is normal. He has every legal right to do this.

No, I do not get the same sense I did from every other president, that he wants America to win. When you include him being the first president to not put his business in a blind trust, he behaves like no other president when it comes to his interest. Meaning, my opinion has objective reasons for it, not just opinion.

[NED funded]

Every president wants to win, the Democrats want to win, the Republicans want to win. Doing it legally is normal. He has every legal right to do this.



I didn't call them supporters. Trump needs to have his actions accepted, and clearly a substantial majority accepts what he's done. They may not like it but they accept his actions.

Yeah, he has the right to. That does not mean he should fight to the death for a poorly thought out EO. If I were him, I would just make some changes to the EO and be done with it, since all the legit criticisms of it would be gone.

[Felya]

I didn't call them supporters. Trump needs to have his actions accepted, and clearly a substantial majority accepts what he's done. They may not like it but they accept his actions.

Bush had 90% approval rating leading into war in Iraq and Afghanistan, using similar rhetoric to Trump. Including having a 'coalition of the willing' because UN couldn't be trusted. When was the moment when I could stop accepting that?

[TZucchini]

Are these the same polls that said DONALD WAS GOING TO LOSE?????????????????

[Astalnar]

If there is one thing Democrats can learn from the Republicans: 8 years of obstructionism gets you the House, Senate and President. So why should they?

The Republicans didn't get all big three because of their state-level politics. It was ground based operation primarily built up by Tea party. People like making fun of the grassroots, but this is one example of "if you don't like it build it anew". For all the jokes and demonisation Tea party prospered among the little people because they engaged people. Democrats on the other hand don't do anything of the sorts. They are trapped in relying on the media to get their message accross for them. And that in the time when trust in media is at an all-time low.

Another thing Democrats miss, is the fact they are fighting a losing battle. They can only delay and never stop, they are the minority in both the congress and the senate. Instead of them picking the battles they can win they are doubling down on everything. That does not help because soon enough all issues become equally important, and thus no issue is important anymore type of thinking. And that makes democrats look petty in the end.
The thing that will doom the Democrats is their identity politics. Instead of abandoning it for return to civic nationalism, they are doubling on the identity. That makes them look insane in the eyes of the people.

Yes, Republican obstructionism was unpopular, but they had to do it because they were in power. Who is really at fault here is Obama. He had to know that if the Republicans hold both of the houses, he will have to adapt accordingly. Instead like an arrogant idiot he called senate and congress mean for not wanting to play with his ball. That is idiotic. It should be obvious that the Republicans want stuff that is important to the Republicans, same as Democrats want what is important to them. Instead of meeting them halfway, Obama chose to circumvent them entirely. That was a big mistake. Same goes for Trump, if the Democrats by some miracle get to hold both houses, he will have to adapt and meet them halfway.

[GennGreymane]

This is clearly not fake news because it supports him!

[Kiri]

The Republicans didn't get all big three because of their state-level politics. It was ground based operation primarily built up by Tea party. People like making fun of the grassroots, but this is one example of "if you don't like it build it anew". For all the jokes and demonisation Tea party prospered among the little people because they engaged people. Democrats on the other hand don't do anything of the sorts. They are trapped in relying on the media to get their message accross for them. And that in the time when trust in media is at an all-time low.

Another thing Democrats miss, is the fact they are fighting a losing battle. They can only delay and never stop, they are the minority in both the congress and the senate. Instead of them picking the battles they can win they are doubling down on everything. That does not help because soon enough all issues become equally important, and thus no issue is important anymore type of thinking. And that makes democrats look petty in the end.
The thing that will doom the Democrats is their identity politics. Instead of abandoning it for return to civic nationalism, they are doubling on the identity. That makes them look insane in the eyes of the people.

Yes, Republican obstructionism was unpopular, but they had to do it because they were in power. Who is really at fault here is Obama. He had to know that if the Republicans hold both of the houses, he will have to adapt accordingly. Instead like an arrogant idiot he called senate and congress mean for not wanting to play with his ball. That is idiotic. It should be obvious that the Republicans want stuff that is important to the Republicans, same as Democrats want what is important to them. Instead of meeting them halfway, Obama chose to circumvent them entirely. That was a big mistake. Same goes for Trump, if the Democrats by some miracle get to hold both houses, he will have to adapt and meet them halfway.

Were Republicans willing to compromise with him, though? Because if they were not, you can't really call him an arrogant idiot.

[TZucchini]

Does the general public support Policy A?

If yes, then Policy A is clearly a really good policy.

If no, then Policy A is clearly a really bad policy.

[Felya]

Were Republicans willing to compromise with him, though? Because if they were not, you can't really call him an arrogant idiot.

There is a great degree of irony in complaining, when executive orders signed within a couple of weeks of becoming president, didn't receive a compromise. Accepting what he does, is the antithesis of a compromise. Compromise involves discussing and elaborating. Not hasty executive orders with a post executive reaction deemed as lacking compromise.

[CostinR]

Were Republicans willing to compromise with him, though? Because if they were not, you can't really call him an arrogant idiot.

They did pass his cabinet both times on a bi-partisan basis didn't they? They voted for TPP fast tracking and were prepared to vote for TPP far more then Democrats before Trump came along and nuked it, they also voted to allow Obama to negotiate on Iran. A lot of them in the Senate refused to vote on nuking the Iran deal, which they could have and humiliated Obama by forcing him to veto that bill.

That's just some things off the top of my head.

[Kiri]

They did pass his cabinet both times on a bi-partisan basis didn't they? They voted for TPP fast tracking and were prepared to vote for TPP far more then Democrats before Trump came along and nuked it, they also voted to allow Obama to negotiate on Iran. A lot of them in the Senate refused to vote on nuking the Iran deal, which they could have and humiliated Obama by forcing him to veto that bill.

That's just some things off the top of my head.

I mean on the issues that this guy brought up, the ones where Obama apparently did not compromise.