Polls are not perfect but they are the best system we have. Approval polls exist outside of Trump, they existed before Trump and they will exist after he's gone from office. Saying that polls are just attacks on Trump is not true.
They are used as an attack on trump, its really just a fairly transparent attempt to make him seem bad, ironically its a stupid thing for a media to both demonize him and to tell people he is viewed badly.
Have you worked in polling?? Because I have. And this is another argument that you made months ago. That no polling anywhere is reliable, but your real goal is to dismiss any post that cites polling, as if there is any other way to gauge public opinion outisde of elections that generally occur once every year or two. You frequently used to dismiss every single polling example, at which point I simply stopped citing them. Can't discuss Trump, and can't discuss polls about Trump. Not just one poll is wrong, ALL polls are wrong. By how much?? You never even offer a baromemter for that. And if the polls are correct, it's because of media and cultural atmosphere.
Yes i've been involved in analyzing methodologies in companies, as a general rule either you validate the methodology or you at least have a history of validating the results, ie poll of voting.
Neither of which qualifies for approval polls, approval polls tends to be trotted out simply as a partisan attack on Trump.
I could give the very practical reason why he might be polling low, because the media is extraordinarily harsh against him, something which even Carter stated, to which the narrative becomes inconvenient because you'd have to acknowledge the fault of the media.
Presidential Approval polls being cited is unique to Trump?? That's pretty disconcerting, as it means I've hallucinated the hundreds of other ones I've read since 1998 about the previous 3 Presidents.
More people identifying as independents and not Republicans was also a hallmark of Bush's low approval rating, so it can't be hand-waved away on partisan identification, either.
More people are identified as independents then Republican or democrat every year for a very very long time, both Democrat and Republicans have had a downward trend for many many years.
It ran through Obama's presidency.
Yes, I'm aware of this.
My point, however, was that Republicans abandoned the label for independent as Bush's approval rating tanked. You can see many examples in both directions; Reagan and Kennedy's popularity both drove partisan identification favorably in their direction; Bush and LBJ's unpopularity drove it away.
Presidential Approval polls being cited is unique to Trump?? That's pretty disconcerting, as it means I've hallucinated the hundreds of other ones I've read since 1998 about the previous 3 Presidents.
Their used as a fairly transparent attack on Trump, the sheer absurdity is due to the fact that it doesn't make sense for a media to be extraordinary negative towards him and to simultaneously breathlessly celebrate his 'unpopularity' in some poll.
The fact this flew over everyone's head is quite telling actually, its really amusing to see no one actually make this point.
My point, however, was that Republicans abandoned the label for independent as Bush's approval rating tanked. You can see many examples in both directions; Reagan and Kennedy's popularity both drove partisan identification favorably in their direction; Bush and LBJ's unpopularity drove it away.
The sharp trends towards independents, against Republicans and Democrats is actually fairly recent, enough that it would be considered a modern phenomenon.
Look at the survey data, the sharpness tick for independents exploded in the last years, actually starting around 2008 which i guess means we have to examine the Obama years, in fact it would have to be considered a phenomenon of the Obama presidency now.
What does a rise in independents during the Obama years have to do with Trump's poll numbers?? The crux of this conversation seems to be "Trump's poll numbers aren't real (except the ones on immigration, which somehow magically are), but if they are real, it's because of the media. Also the Obama years saw a rise in Independents".
That polls like that are bunk, because they don't correlate to anything else meaningful, and seem to have a negative correlation.
Independents spiked early on Obama's Presidency as did the downward trend for both parties, this despite apparently said polls were high for Obama early on, high approval drives people away from parties then?
Markets and economic enthusiasm is apparently sky high now, the markets have been growing ever stronger and not the seeming crash or wild fluctuations if we are to believe the apocalypse-narrative the media has been going on for awhile on Trump, apparently Trump is going to end the world in nuclear fire, so the markets just react strongly?
btw if you worked in polling in companies, polling and forecasting is always compared to other trends to determine its usefulness and validity, no poll or survey is ever treated as gospel truth alone, poll's do not validate itself.
The fact virtually no one ever cross-referenced these polls to anything else pretty much means they were used wrong in this thread the entire time.
That polls like that are bunk, because they don't correlate to anything else meaningful, and seem to have a negative correlation.
Independents spiked early on Obama's Presidency as did the downward trend for both parties, this despite apparently said polls were high for Obama early on, high approval drives people away from parties then?
Markets and economic enthusiasm is apparently sky high now, the markets have been growing ever stronger and not the seeming crash or wild fluctuations if we are to believe the apocalypse-narrative the media has been going on for awhile on Trump, apparently Trump is going to end the world in nuclear fire, so the markets just react strongly?
btw if you worked in polling in companies, polling and forecasting is always compared to other trends to determine its usefulness and validity, no poll or survey is ever treated as gospel truth alone, poll's do not validate itself.
The fact virtually no one ever cross-referenced these polls to anything else pretty much means they were used wrong in this thread the entire time.
Duly noted. Polls are off limits. Based on previous posts from months ago, we can surmise Trump's own statements are off limits. Every single article from a so-called mainstream publication is also going to be dismissed out of hand. So we are left with, basically, you licking your finger and sticking it in the air to decide which way the wind is blowing.
My point, however, was that Republicans abandoned the label for independent as Bush's approval rating tanked. You can see many examples in both directions; Reagan and Kennedy's popularity both drove partisan identification favorably in their direction; Bush and LBJ's unpopularity drove it away.
The sharp trends towards independents, against Republicans and Democrats is actually fairly recent, enough that it would be considered a modern phenomenon.
Look at the survey data, the sharpness tick for independents exploded in the last years, actually starting around 2008 which i guess means we have to examine the Obama years, in fact it would have to be considered a phenomenon of the Obama presidency now.
There's a period of time missing there. And if the trend is continuing then it would not be an Obama Era trend because Trump is the President.
I wonder what that line looks like now that people are identifing more as Democrats and fewer are as Republicans. Do you have that data?
Try looking at actual non-partisan studies on the coverage of Trump.
Every news network is around 90%, Fox is around 50/50.
The study you quote was from Harvard on the first 100 days of Trump's presidency. While it concludes that the media does need to be careful to be impartial, its findings are that the coverage of Trump broadly reflects the issues being discussed: "The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."
A couple of stats from the report: - during that period Trump received 3 times the amount of media coverage given to past presidents (featuring in an incredible 41% of all news stories). - 65% of the coverage was about Trump's own words (6% related to Democrat comments on Trump). Both those stats reflect that Trump has specifically sought out media coverage, as opposed to being the subject of a concerted attempt to demonize him. It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the European media over the same period were at least as critical of Trump and probably more so, so this isn't something that can be seen in terms of simple partisanship.
Trump spent the first week of his Presidency insisting that photographic evidence of the National Mall at his Inauguration wasn't real. He then spent the next week stranding legal green card holders at airports all across the country on purpose. That is how Trump entered the office. Small wonder it took a negative tone. He hasn't held a press conference in 307 days.
As a wastrel, I don't mind him in our parliament, because the likes of him make it more representative by bucking the trend of being excessively socio-economically privileged compared with the nation - frankly, most MPs end up milking the opportunities represented by power, and why should this be limited to privileged persons?
As a drunkard, I don't mind him - increases representation.
As a transgressive drunk, I am incensed about him - because he is a law-maker.
The sequence of revelations:
- just about now, he grabbed and forcibly kissed a fellow MP, whom was at a break to grab coffee from a parliamentary debate - he soused from a xmas party
- a year before, he had grabbed and tugged hair of a fellow MP, very drunk
- at an unspecified time, he had tried to drag a fellow MP to the dancefloor forcibly, planting a kiss on the check
Two of the above peers and colleagues are female, one male.
Thankfully the most recent incident has been referred to the police.
I hope he is removed from the parliament, because the degree of power implies greater responsibility. The would-be replacement would be the next-in-line from the said populist party, nasty maybe in policy, but arguably highly democratic in making our parliament less elitist. So representation will not be lost.
As a wastrel, I don't mind him in our parliament, because the likes of him make it more representative by bucking the trend of being excessively socio-economically privileged compared with the nation - frankly, most MPs end up milking the opportunities represented by power, and why should this be limited to privileged persons?
As a drunkard, I don't mind him - increases representation.
As a transgressive drunk, I am incensed about him - because he is a law-maker.
The sequence of revelations:
- just about now, he grabbed and forcibly kissed a fellow MP, whom was at a break to grab coffee from a parliamentary debate - he soused from a xmas party
- a year before, he had grabbed and tugged hair of a fellow MP, very drunk
- at an unspecified time, he had tried to drag a fellow MP to the dancefloor forcibly, planting a kiss on the check
Two of the above peers and colleagues are female, one male.
Thankfully the most recent incident has been referred to the police.
I hope he is removed from the parliament, because the degree of power implies greater responsibility. The would-be replacement would be the next-in-line from the said populist party, nasty maybe in policy, but arguably highly democratic in making our parliament less elitist. So representation will not be lost.
Only in the last few months has the US started to take this seriously. I'm unfamiliar with this situation, but it sounds very similar to nearly every case over here of powerful males abusing their power. I highly doubt it's constrained by country, or even party or politcal affiliation for that matter. Most of this stuff has already happened. It's just a matrer of if/when these stories come out and how their respective parties respond in kind.
This country has never recovered from the 08 recession as far as I am concerned, no matter what Obama or anyone else said about it. And deficit talk? Dems and pubs both continue to grow it even larger, one way or another. That's my take away on it at least (as far as I can focus on it anyway).
Bush and Obama's war blew the deficit out of the water.
Both parties share the blame i agree.
Obama's war?? Iraq?? What a joke......try this on someone who forgot how this went down, not me.
Yeah, because when Obama took office he immediately pulled out and stopped raiding weddings and families with drone bombings. Oh wait...
The debt and the deficit are indeed two very different things. The debt is the total sum of all debts in the entire country, no matter who owes them. If the government borrows money, that adds to the debt. If a private individual takes out a mortgage, that also contributes to the debt--the debt is not just a government thing.
If you look at any graph of the national debt, it ALWAYS GOES UP, every single year, without fail, no matter which party controls the federal government. Ours is a credit-based economy; the national debt increases as GDP increases.
The truly relevant figure is debt as a percentage of GDP, which indicates how much of the economy is based on credit and debt. This is not generally a good indicator of government policy, since government spending only comprises a part of the national debt; the rest is private debt.
The federal deficit, however, is the federal government's revenue minus its spending. While the debt measures the country as a whole, the deficit measures the government's spending patterns. Both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, the deficit can go up or down depending on the tax and spending policies of the current Congress. It's easy to confuse this with the debt because the word "debt" is often used in place of "deficit" even when discussing the federal deficit specifically.
Each administration inherits the previous administration's deficit or surplus. Thus, the truly relevant figure is the change in the total deficit by year. This is the same reason why we measure GDP by percent growth instead of total value.
Saying Obama presided over a larger deficit than previous presidents is a bit like saying Carter presided over a larger GDP than Reagan--both are true, but they imply something very false. Presidents inherit both total GDP and total deficit; the true indicator of their success, to the extent that you give the government credit or blame for the economy, is the percent change in GDP and the deficit.
For the record, the federal deficit under Obama skyrocketed after implementing the Bush administration's recommended stimulus package, only to decrease below pre-Obama levels by the end of his presidency, partly due to higher average tax rates for the wealthy. The national debt increased under Obama, but then, the national debt increases under every president, even those who reduce the federal deficit like Obama and Clinton.
Regarding polls: if you disregard data that's inconvenient, you're not basing your conclusions on hard evidence. By definition, the moment we start ignoring new data is the moment we stop learning.
I've never heard of any scientist, engineer, inventory, programmer, or technician who made a discovery by ignoring hard data and going with an unproven assumption.
The debt is the total sum of all debts in the entire country, no matter who owes them. If the government borrows money, that adds to the debt. If a private individual takes out a mortgage, that also contributes to the debt--the debt is not just a government thing.
I don't think this is consistent with the standard use of the phrase "national debt."
I hope he is removed from the parliament, because the degree of power implies greater responsibility. The would-be replacement would be the next-in-line from the said populist party, nasty maybe in policy, but arguably highly democratic in making our parliament less elitist. So representation will not be lost.
Only in the last few months has the US started to take this seriously. I'm unfamiliar with this situation, but it sounds very similar to nearly every case over here of powerful males abusing their power. I highly doubt it's constrained by country, or even party or politcal affiliation for that matter. Most of this stuff has already happened. It's just a matrer of if/when these stories come out and how their respective parties respond in kind.
The slight difference is that Finland is multi-party proportional representation, where horrid abject failures of a given MP have to be overlooked, lest one of the de-facto ruling parties lose the power over other. Another like Hakkarainen would progress to parliament in his place.
Assuming that intrinsic sense of shame will remove these politicians from position of law-making power is to think that politicians can self-govern any better than anyone else.
I don't think so.
As said, anything minus the abuse and violence "when drunk" I can take from Hakkarainen as making more diverse and representative parliament.
But three incidents is intolerable - and it pains me that he has been performing as if a legit MP after the first one.
@joluv: The standard use is itself inconsistent. People use debt and deficit interchangeably and use both words to refer to both the government's balance and the overall economy's balance.
Normally I prefer to let usage determine meaning, rather than insisting that dictionary definitions be standard, but these are the only words we have to refer to two very different types of statistics, and confusing the statistics can actually give us the wrong idea about government spending patterns. Words can change meaning, but these two statistics are collected in different ways, and the language we use should reflect that.
Regarding polls: if you disregard data that's inconvenient, you're not basing your conclusions on hard evidence. By definition, the moment we start ignoring new data is the moment we stop learning.
I've never heard of any scientist, engineer, inventory, programmer, or technician who made a discovery by ignoring hard data and going with an unproven assumption.
@joluv: The Treasury Department would probably be the source to trust. "Public debt" would be the government's balance per their definition, but their word for private debt is "debt held by the public," which I think is even more confusing. Maybe we should just specify which type of debt or deficit we're talking about whenever we discuss these numbers.
I think "debt held by the public" actually matches up better with "the government's balance" since it leaves off the amount that the government owes itself. I found the Wikipedia explanation less confusing than (but apparently consistent with) the Treasury's:
There are two components of gross national debt:
- Debt held by the public, such as Treasury securities held by investors outside the federal government, including those held by individuals, corporations, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments. Since 2016, this has been around two-thirds of the national debt and mostly comes from credit and financial markets.
- Debt held by government accounts or intragovernmental debt, such as non-marketable Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government that are owed to program beneficiaries, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. Debt held by government accounts represents the cumulative surpluses, including interest earnings, of various government programs that have been invested in Treasury securities. Since 2016, this has comprised one-third of the US debt and originates from federal governmental spending in the form of mandatory spending programs, discretionary spending programs and unpaid interest the government owes to creditors.
National debt, i.e. government only, is the most commonly quoted statistic, but I think the total debt of public and private sectors is relevant as well. One of the things I don't like about the UK economy is that the conservatives under Thatcher and then New Labour both promoted the idea of debt as a good thing in itself and that's led to huge increases in both public and private debt - one of the contributory factors in the financial bubble that burst in 2007/08.
Here's a chart I think is helpful, showing the UK (along with Japan) is now out of step with international norms in terms of total debt.
If the debt/deficit is such an issue why did Republicans just pass this gigantic tax cut for the wealthy that independent and conservative economists says will grow it?
That's the trillion dollar question.
Also, apparently the Republican tax bill will force $25 billion in immediate cuts to Medicare, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a move that could be stopped only with a bipartisan vote. I don't see why Democrats should let them off the hook when they literally passed this in the middle of the night without public hearings or Democratic party input.
The study you quote was from Harvard on the first 100 days of Trump's presidency. While it concludes that the media does need to be careful to be impartial, its findings are that the coverage of Trump broadly reflects the issues being discussed: "The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."
If Obama had half the negative coverage when he decided to engage in destroying Libya, then it may be excusable.
As it is, the media's treatment of Trump is vastly lopsided compared to past Presidents.
The media should be impartial and rarely display an overt opinion, in fact that opinionated news is the norm rather then the exception is one of the biggest problems in our society today.
If the debt/deficit is such an issue why did Republicans just pass this gigantic tax cut for the wealthy that independent and conservative economists says will grow it?
It's impossible to handle a debt or deficit as large as America's by pure frugal methods of cost cutting, the only other alternative is trying to aim for an economic boom.
The study you quote was from Harvard on the first 100 days of Trump's presidency. While it concludes that the media does need to be careful to be impartial, its findings are that the coverage of Trump broadly reflects the issues being discussed: "The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."
If Obama had half the negative coverage when he decided to engage in destroying Libya, then it may be excusable.
As it is, the media's treatment of Trump is vastly lopsided compared to past Presidents.
And also is affecting policy which is harmful and regressive and he has labeled the media fake news and the "enemy of the people."
What obligation do they have to distort reality to provide positive coverage to Trump? That's Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway's job.
Trump has worked hard to earn the ill will of Americans. Today, more Americans support impeachment hearings to potentially remove President Trump than voting for his re-election, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.
Engaging in debate on blanket statements that simply assert that Trump is treated unfairly is, frankly, impossible. If one of us pushes back on the claim, the response will be "yes he is, it is a verifiable fact", an assertation that will be repeated 2 or 3 more times until the person countering will simply throw up their hands and give up. Every President has felt the wrath of the media. Only this one seems incapable of dealing with it.
Destroying an entire country will always rank Obama as a worser President then Trump by any objective means by a large margin unless he starts an un-justified war as well, and i've always liked Obama but he truly screwed up in that.
Particularly since Obama actually went around congress in doing so, not even Bush launched a war bypassing all checks and balances created to curb such things, and Bush's war was totally reprehensible.
The repercussions of it is still felt today, even the Immigrant/refugee crisis is influenced by the total destabilization of Libya, Gaddafi himself warned that such a phenomenon would happen if his country was crippled.
As it is, Hillary's involvement and support of that is also morally reprehensible without compare to him, one of the reasons why i don't engage in the type of selective moral outrage over Trump with people who voted for Hillary here.
Comments
Every news network is around 90%, Fox is around 50/50.
My point, however, was that Republicans abandoned the label for independent as Bush's approval rating tanked. You can see many examples in both directions; Reagan and Kennedy's popularity both drove partisan identification favorably in their direction; Bush and LBJ's unpopularity drove it away.
The fact this flew over everyone's head is quite telling actually, its really amusing to see no one actually make this point.
Look at the survey data, the sharpness tick for independents exploded in the last years, actually starting around 2008 which i guess means we have to examine the Obama years, in fact it would have to be considered a phenomenon of the Obama presidency now.
Independents spiked early on Obama's Presidency as did the downward trend for both parties, this despite apparently said polls were high for Obama early on, high approval drives people away from parties then?
Markets and economic enthusiasm is apparently sky high now, the markets have been growing ever stronger and not the seeming crash or wild fluctuations if we are to believe the apocalypse-narrative the media has been going on for awhile on Trump, apparently Trump is going to end the world in nuclear fire, so the markets just react strongly?
btw if you worked in polling in companies, polling and forecasting is always compared to other trends to determine its usefulness and validity, no poll or survey is ever treated as gospel truth alone, poll's do not validate itself.
The fact virtually no one ever cross-referenced these polls to anything else pretty much means they were used wrong in this thread the entire time.
I wonder what that line looks like now that people are identifing more as Democrats and fewer are as Republicans. Do you have that data?
A couple of stats from the report:
- during that period Trump received 3 times the amount of media coverage given to past presidents (featuring in an incredible 41% of all news stories).
- 65% of the coverage was about Trump's own words (6% related to Democrat comments on Trump).
Both those stats reflect that Trump has specifically sought out media coverage, as opposed to being the subject of a concerted attempt to demonize him. It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the European media over the same period were at least as critical of Trump and probably more so, so this isn't something that can be seen in terms of simple partisanship.
This is a Finnish MP.
As a wastrel, I don't mind him in our parliament, because the likes of him make it more representative by bucking the trend of being excessively socio-economically privileged compared with the nation - frankly, most MPs end up milking the opportunities represented by power, and why should this be limited to privileged persons?
As a drunkard, I don't mind him - increases representation.
As a transgressive drunk, I am incensed about him - because he is a law-maker.
The sequence of revelations:
- just about now, he grabbed and forcibly kissed a fellow MP, whom was at a break to grab coffee from a parliamentary debate - he soused from a xmas party
- a year before, he had grabbed and tugged hair of a fellow MP, very drunk
- at an unspecified time, he had tried to drag a fellow MP to the dancefloor forcibly, planting a kiss on the check
Two of the above peers and colleagues are female, one male.
Thankfully the most recent incident has been referred to the police.
I hope he is removed from the parliament, because the degree of power implies greater responsibility. The would-be replacement would be the next-in-line from the said populist party, nasty maybe in policy, but arguably highly democratic in making our parliament less elitist. So representation will not be lost.
The debt and the deficit are indeed two very different things. The debt is the total sum of all debts in the entire country, no matter who owes them. If the government borrows money, that adds to the debt. If a private individual takes out a mortgage, that also contributes to the debt--the debt is not just a government thing.
If you look at any graph of the national debt, it ALWAYS GOES UP, every single year, without fail, no matter which party controls the federal government. Ours is a credit-based economy; the national debt increases as GDP increases.
The truly relevant figure is debt as a percentage of GDP, which indicates how much of the economy is based on credit and debt. This is not generally a good indicator of government policy, since government spending only comprises a part of the national debt; the rest is private debt.
The federal deficit, however, is the federal government's revenue minus its spending. While the debt measures the country as a whole, the deficit measures the government's spending patterns. Both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, the deficit can go up or down depending on the tax and spending policies of the current Congress. It's easy to confuse this with the debt because the word "debt" is often used in place of "deficit" even when discussing the federal deficit specifically.
Each administration inherits the previous administration's deficit or surplus. Thus, the truly relevant figure is the change in the total deficit by year. This is the same reason why we measure GDP by percent growth instead of total value.
Saying Obama presided over a larger deficit than previous presidents is a bit like saying Carter presided over a larger GDP than Reagan--both are true, but they imply something very false. Presidents inherit both total GDP and total deficit; the true indicator of their success, to the extent that you give the government credit or blame for the economy, is the percent change in GDP and the deficit.
I've never heard of any scientist, engineer, inventory, programmer, or technician who made a discovery by ignoring hard data and going with an unproven assumption.
Assuming that intrinsic sense of shame will remove these politicians from position of law-making power is to think that politicians can self-govern any better than anyone else.
I don't think so.
As said, anything minus the abuse and violence "when drunk" I can take from Hakkarainen as making more diverse and representative parliament.
But three incidents is intolerable - and it pains me that he has been performing as if a legit MP after the first one.
Normally I prefer to let usage determine meaning, rather than insisting that dictionary definitions be standard, but these are the only words we have to refer to two very different types of statistics, and confusing the statistics can actually give us the wrong idea about government spending patterns. Words can change meaning, but these two statistics are collected in different ways, and the language we use should reflect that.
Here's a chart I think is helpful, showing the UK (along with Japan) is now out of step with international norms in terms of total debt.
That's the trillion dollar question.
Also, apparently the Republican tax bill will force $25 billion in immediate cuts to Medicare, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a move that could be stopped only with a bipartisan vote. I don't see why Democrats should let them off the hook when they literally passed this in the middle of the night without public hearings or Democratic party input.
As it is, the media's treatment of Trump is vastly lopsided compared to past Presidents.
The media should be impartial and rarely display an overt opinion, in fact that opinionated news is the norm rather then the exception is one of the biggest problems in our society today. It's impossible to handle a debt or deficit as large as America's by pure frugal methods of cost cutting, the only other alternative is trying to aim for an economic boom.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html
And also is affecting policy which is harmful and regressive and he has labeled the media fake news and the "enemy of the people."
What obligation do they have to distort reality to provide positive coverage to Trump? That's Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway's job.
Trump has worked hard to earn the ill will of Americans. Today, more Americans support impeachment hearings to potentially remove President Trump than voting for his re-election, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/12/20/poll-more-americans-support-impeaching-trump-than-voting-for-him-in-2020/23313095/
Particularly since Obama actually went around congress in doing so, not even Bush launched a war bypassing all checks and balances created to curb such things, and Bush's war was totally reprehensible.
The repercussions of it is still felt today, even the Immigrant/refugee crisis is influenced by the total destabilization of Libya, Gaddafi himself warned that such a phenomenon would happen if his country was crippled.
As it is, Hillary's involvement and support of that is also morally reprehensible without compare to him, one of the reasons why i don't engage in the type of selective moral outrage over Trump with people who voted for Hillary here.