Do you approve of the job the President of the United States is doing?

[Leen]

At what point did I say it's okay for somebody to say whatever they want? People should be respectful with their opinions, that would be great. But there is no opinion police to say which is good or bad. Especially in a subject like this. Not the extreme examples you gave.
Never in a conversation have I ever heard anybody say ' that is such a bad opinion'. They disagree with it maybe. But I've never debated anything with somebody to be told my opinion is wrong. Because that's ridiculous

There's a thing called popular and unpopular opinions for a reason.

 

[cIementine]

i don't agree with his beliefs or the republican view in general, but i can kinda appreciate his work ethic????. while i don't agree with the majority of what he is planning to do, he's at least keeping his promises, which on one hand is frightening for liberals but at least is true to his word. i think the TPP removal is a good thing, but the wall, the white house pages, the pipeline and the muslim registry stuff is bs. he's doing a lot now and it's been less than a week, but it makes me wonder what he's going to do in the rest of his term. it seems he views the country as a business deal and not a constitution. he is benefitting the economy of the country but not the people.
to add to the discussion about trump/pence being anti-lgbt+, they really are lmao. pence is definitely worse than trump on this though, by far.

 

[forestyne]

I was gonna hold back on replying to this thread, being British and all, but everything that's happened within the past few hours, especially involving the Doomsday Clock, Trump agreeing with torture and no political leaders wanting to meet with him rather than our Prime Minister, I'm strongly inclined to say no.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Then again, what's the point of arguing for? There's nothing you can do that'll make someone go "okay, maybe we should sack this bloke" and move the presidency to someone even more sinister, cheap Pence. I don't like it, but these are the consequences of the actions of voters. (aka ya dun goofed)

 

[Romaki]

No approval and wishing for more education in the US.

 

[xSuperMario64x]

Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.

 

[Red Cat]

Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.

Faith is belief without proof, and Trump definitely hasn't done anything to prove that he'll be a good president. I'd put money on Jesus returning to Earth in the next 4 years before I'd put money on Trump becoming a changed man and being a good president.

 

[Munyo]

So right now, he's targeting sanctuary cities.
I don't approve of that.

 

[RedRum2514]

I can't believe hes actually building the wall, he may be the first politician to go through with his promises! and apparently hes working on deporting immigrants esp ones with a criminal record, which I think is great! why can't australia do that? makes me want to live there now honestly! I really think he may do america some good. I mean a few things hes doing aren't that great, but I think its worth it to get rid of those ungrateful immigrants! and if the immigrants don't like whats hes doing, then they should move back to there own country! and unless they have american blood in them they can gtfo, even if they were born there. I certainly think the way hes going now is a terrible start, but theres room for improvement and I think america will survive, even prosper.

I'm stating MY opinion and I don't require your hate as it wont change my mind! Good day.

 

[LinkToTheWorld]

Mmmm sorry but there are definitely good and bad opinions.
If your "opinion" is that those of a different race, religion, sexuality, or gender/gender identity should be treated lesser then your opinion is bad, and that's putting it lightly.

Where on this thread has somebody said anything like that? They haven't.
That's the idea of debate threads. People have differing opinions and you might not like them or I might not like them but it doesn't mean they're wrong or they 'suck'. Like I said, there's no opinion police to decide who is right or wrong.
If somebody finds it too difficult to listen to somebody's opinion, respect that it's their opinion and either move along or debate it without being insulting, then they should avoid topics like this.

 

[LinkToTheWorld]

There's a thing called popular and unpopular opinions for a reason.

Unpopular and popular doesn't mean the same as good and bad.

 

[Haskell]

So right now, he's targeting sanctuary cities.
I don't approve of that.

I approve. Sanctuary cities are breaking the law. Illegals are illegals. Point. Period. Blank.

 

[idiotdoomspiral]

Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.

i'm curious. would you still have faith in trump if he did or said something that would cross the line for you? or is there nothing that trump can do that's too far do you think?

 

[Waluigi]

Keep on disapproving ^^ I'll just be sitting here keeping faith in our president no matter how stupid he may sound or act.

Attitudes like this are more dangerous than anything.

 

[Red Cat]

I approve. Sanctuary cities are breaking the law. Illegals are illegals. Point. Period. Blank.

Here's some questions for you: Why do you care if Los Angeles or Chicago chooses to harbor illegal immigrants? And what happened to the 10th Amendment and States' rights that conservatives love so much? Trump targeting cities that overwhelmingly voted against him sets a bad precedent and will probably come back to bite conservatives in the ass. If Trump can successfully defund sanctuary cities, then the next Democratic president could defund states that limit abortion access for example and this back-and-forth would get ugly pretty quickly.

 

[MasterM64]

Here's some questions for you: Why do you care if Los Angeles or Chicago chooses to harbor illegal immigrants? And what happened to the 10th Amendment and States' rights that conservatives love so much? Trump targeting cities that overwhelmingly voted against him sets a bad precedent and will probably come back to bite conservatives in the ass. If Trump can successfully defund sanctuary cities, then the next Democratic president could defund states that limit abortion access for example and this back-and-forth would get ugly pretty quickly.

The reason why Trump is going after these cities has nothing to do with the fact that they voted against him. Trump is going after these cities because they are not enforcing immigration laws that require them to collaborate with U.S. immigration authorities which lead to the reporting/detainment/deporting of illegal immigrants. If you enter this nation illegally, you broke the law and should be held accountable like anyone else who breaks the law. How would you feel if someone broke the law and then didn't get punished for it or were given a lesser punishment merely because of political correctness or interest by politicians?

 

[Red Cat]

How would you feel if someone broke the law and then didn't get punished for it or were given a lesser punishment merely because of political correctness or interest by politicians?

I feel this way when a cop shoots an unarmed black person for no reason and doesn't get punished for it like anyone else who commits murder because they're cops and the politically correct thing to do is to glorify the police and rationalize all of their actions no matter how obviously heinous it appears on the video.

 

[Soda Fox]

Here's some questions for you: Why do you care if Los Angeles or Chicago chooses to harbor illegal immigrants? And what happened to the 10th Amendment and States' rights that conservatives love so much? Trump targeting cities that overwhelmingly voted against him sets a bad precedent and will probably come back to bite conservatives in the ass. If Trump can successfully defund sanctuary cities, then the next Democratic president could defund states that limit abortion access for example and this back-and-forth would get ugly pretty quickly.

I think it's fair. I'm pretty sure the 10th Ammendment states that a state can do as it chooses with its own resources so if the Federal Government cuts funding to that state it's just staying in line with the ammendment.

Same if abortion was federally legal but states didn't comply. Cut funding to that state and let that state handle it's decisions. If the state can't then it will need to follow federal law to get funding again. I don't see anything wrong with that. I just see it as Federal Government is like a parent, if your parent is taking care of you you should follow their rules (of course you can always try to come to a compromise). If you want to live by your own rules then you need to take care of yourself.

 

[seliph]

Where on this thread has somebody said anything like that? They haven't.
That's the idea of debate threads. People have differing opinions and you might not like them or I might not like them but it doesn't mean they're wrong or they 'suck'. Like I said, there's no opinion police to decide who is right or wrong.
If somebody finds it too difficult to listen to somebody's opinion, respect that it's their opinion and either move along or debate it without being insulting, then they should avoid topics like this.

It's an example. Also like it's been said: thinking someone's opinion is bad or that it sucks is also an opinion and you can't say "well you're wrong" about that.
And again, I'm not going to respect someone's opinion if it is dehumanizing anyone. Sorry but not really.

 

[Red Cat]

I think it's fair. I'm pretty sure the 10th Ammendment states that a state can do as it chooses with its own resources so if the Federal Government cuts funding to that state it's just staying in line with the ammendment.

Same if abortion was federally legal but states didn't comply. Cut funding to that state and let that state handle it's decisions. If the state can't then it will need to follow federal law to get funding again. I don't see anything wrong with that. I just see it as Federal Government is like a parent, if your parent is taking care of you you should follow their rules (of course you can always try to come to a compromise). If you want to live by your own rules then you need to take care of yourself.

Yeah, except that people living in those cities and states still have to pay federal taxes, so it wouldn't be fair for the federal government to just take money from those places and not give any back. A lot of states have already been disregarding Roe v. Wade, but have still received federal funding because using the money as leverage to control individual communities further polarizes our country which is unhealthy. If Trump wants local communities to enforce federal immigration laws, then he needs to work with those communities to develop solutions instead of playing dictator and ramming stuff down their throats, because all that will lead to is retaliation and retribution in the future.

 

[-Apples-]

The reason why Trump is going after these cities has nothing to do with the fact that they voted against him. Trump is going after these cities because they are not enforcing immigration laws that require them to collaborate with U.S. immigration authorities which lead to the reporting/detainment/deporting of illegal immigrants. If you enter this nation illegally, you broke the law and should be held accountable like anyone else who breaks the law. How would you feel if someone broke the law and then didn't get punished for it or were given a lesser punishment merely because of political correctness or interest by politicians?

I agree. Foreign matters (such as immigration and terrorism) should be left up to the federal government to decide. It's not to the states or to the cities. In an age of polarization, people would prefer if everything was taken at a federal level, but some things should be left up to the federal government as others are to cities and states.

The federal government should only handle issues like crime and punishment, Bill of Rights issues, foreign issues, and serious issues regarding civil rights, the environment and economics. Examples include the death penalty, protecting endangered animals, suppressing political correctness, and keeping same-sex marriage legal (and yes, it should be legal).

The state governments should take care of issues like moral issues (i.e. abortion), caring for citizens (i.e. Social Security), regulating controversial products (i.e. gun control), and important issues with the economy and environment.

If the law should decide on some things, but shouldn't be up to the state or federal government, it should go to the city government, such as city taxes, ordinances, and the lesser serious issues on the economy and environment (like recycling requirements).

Finally, other issues (like the bathroom debate, obesity, censorship, and behavior codes) should be left to the businesses and institutions, and not to the law. Those issues should stay out of politics.