Poll - Most Americans Optimistic about Country's Future After the Election
28 replies, posted
[url]http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-poll-finds-most-people-optimistic-about-direction-of-the-country-after-election/[/url]
[QUOTE]The new WaPo-Schar School poll finds that 54 percent are optimistic about the way things are going in the country, while 48 percent are specifically optimistic about the policies Trump will pursue.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Most polled are confident Trump can serve effectively as president, can change up Washington, and improve Americans’ standard of living, but he has net negatives on people’s confidence of whether he can respect people he disagrees with and make “wise decisions about war and peace.”[/QUOTE]
There's also some stuff in there about how people felt about the election.
Let's hope this is a sign that things are going to calm down a bit.
woo! I'm the 46%!
There's some big markers for concern though.
Citizens United hasn't had a word brought up about it despite the team behind it being central to Trumps Campaign
Net Neutrality hasn't gotten off to a good start
And there's still huge concerns about Trumps ability to stack the SCOTUS for the next couple decades should we have justices retiring or dying during his tenure.
we will wait and see what he does, by necessity, but I sure as shit hope you americans watch this guy like a hawk
We got the worst possible outcome, but this election is a historical turning point in American politics. There's a massive movement for change, not Obama's fake sell-out "change", but REAL change. I only hope that the country doesn't lose momentum in the interim years.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51387549]And there's still huge concerns about Trumps ability to stack the SCOTUS for the next couple decades should we have justices retiring or dying during his tenure.[/QUOTE]
Don't you think, in that case, that putting term limits on Justices, or redefining the role of the Supreme Court might be a good idea? Bill O'rielly said back when Gay marriage was legalized that the Court has become just as much a political body as Congress or the Senate, perhaps that should be changed?
Honestly I'd rather have Trump than Clinton, though neither are particularly great choices. I can't do anything to change Trump's presidency, so I am forced to wait and see what happens, but I'm thinking he's at the very least not going to cock up too badly.
Buyer's remorse :v:
I can at least hope for FULL ACCELERATIONISM at least
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51387723]Buyer's remorse :v:
I can at least hope for FULL ACCELERATIONISM at least[/QUOTE]
That's the second time you've used that term, what does it mean? I tried googling it.
full acceleration of change
Frankly, I can only hope for the best with Trump's presidency. We don't have much of a say after the election so we have to make do.
I'm not going to mope over spilt crude.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51387741]That's the second time you've used that term, what does it mean? I tried googling it.[/QUOTE]
FULL ACCELERATIONISM or Buyer's remorse? Probably the former since the latter is easily google-able.
Accelerationism is the idea that when things get shitty people will clamor for change, so because of that you should accelerate the decline of society. It's usually discredited but sometimes people go for it. People who really buy into it will actively support the worst policies they possibly can to make things worse to get real change to happen, because they think reform just placates people rather than actually solves problems. I say full accelerationism because im fucking around.
[video=youtube;b4vHSiotAFA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vHSiotAFA[/video]
here's a light example of a socialist saying he'd vote for Trump
[sp]also before you ask about him grabbing his face he has a nervous tick lol[/sp]
Uhhhh, yeah. If they think Trump can change washington for the better, I've got Christie's Bridge to sell to them. All of the Treasury picks have ties to Big Banks (The frontrunner one of the ones that caused the 2008 crash), Both Secretary of States frontrunners are legit crazy, and Trump has confirmed he's not divesting.
He's not Draining the swamp. Hes filling it up with his Tendrills
And Liberal's in my twitter feed are fucking screaming that Trump's going to take over with a Fascist Coup.
I'm not fucking joking about that last part, They are now saying we need to Resist Trump to save The republic.
In fact I can see Left wing Militia springing up.
[QUOTE]And Liberal's in my twitter feed are fucking screaming that Trump's going to take over with a Fascist Coup.[/QUOTE]
Trump does not have groups subverting the education system to indoctrinate people into its dogma. Trump has not taken over various media orgs to ensure or give and edge to a certain parties' candidates during election. Trump is not threatening and harassing electoral voters to change their vote. One side isn't out rioting to intimidate people into changing their views. Trump won his primaries fairly (unlike Clinton who has subverted her party's primaries or her parties democratic process.)
Im sorry but any one who acting all fascist during this election is the left.
[QUOTE]accelerationism [/QUOTE]
I guess I am accelerationist.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51387894]Trump does not have groups subverting the education system to indoctrinate people into its dogma. Trump has not taken over various media orgs to ensure or give and edge to a certain parties' candidates during election. Trump is not threatening and harassing electoral voters to change their vote. One side isn't out rioting to intimidate people into changing their views. Trump won his primaries fairly (unlike Clinton who has subverted her party's primaries or her parties democratic process.)
Im sorry but any one who acting all fascist during this election is the left.[/QUOTE]
I agree, there is no equivalency.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51387894]Trump does not have groups subverting the education system to indoctrinate people into its dogma. Trump has not taken over various media orgs to ensure or give and edge to a certain parties' candidates during election. Trump is not threatening and harassing electoral voters to change their vote. One side isn't out rioting to intimidate people into changing their views. Trump won his primaries fairly (unlike Clinton who has subverted her party's primaries or her parties democratic process.)
Im sorry but any one who acting all fascist during this election is the left.
[/QUOTE]
If you think i'm exaggerating, This is Vox's Headline:
[QUOTE][B]We have 100 days to stop Donald Trump from systemically corrupting our institutions[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Sub-Header:
[QUOTE]The transition period is our last best chance to save the republic[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51387894]Trump does not have groups subverting the education system to indoctrinate people into its dogma. Trump has not taken over various media orgs to ensure or give and edge to a certain parties' candidates during election. Trump is not threatening and harassing electoral voters to change their vote. One side isn't out rioting to intimidate people into changing their views. Trump won his primaries fairly (unlike Clinton who has subverted her party's primaries or her parties democratic process.)
Im sorry but any one who acting all fascist during this election is the left.
I guess I am accelerationist.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck about the education thing. And also Hillary didn't take over the news organizations, they went against Trump because he was a scummy human being with retarded policies, and no, they didn't not talk about Hillary's scandals. CNN covered the e-mails quite a bit.
Also the DNC is a private organization who technically can do what they want. Which is shit, but you can't really subvert yourself.
Trump was called fascist because [I]his policies and rhetoric were very similar to fascists historically[/I]. Not because of unfair bias. It's like saying schools are unfairly biased for teaching evolution and not entertaining creationism
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51387989]
Trump was called fascist because [I]his policies and rhetoric were very similar to fascists historically[/I]. Not because of bias.[/QUOTE]
When It turns out, Trump really didn't fucking know what a presidency does.
The best answer isn't malice, it's stupidity.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51388005]When It turns out, Trump really didn't fucking know what a presidency does.
The best answer isn't malice, it's stupidity.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he'll give us full fascism because of that and the opposition he faces. But we will pretty much certainly experience a shift towards right-wing authoritarianism.
Also while that's a good assumption, you can't depend on it. Especially when you look at his cabinet
-snip-
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51387702]Don't you think, in that case, that putting term limits on Justices, or redefining the role of the Supreme Court might be a good idea? Bill O'rielly said back when Gay marriage was legalized that the Court has become just as much a political body as Congress or the Senate, perhaps that should be changed?[/QUOTE]
Redefining the role of the Supreme Court is an inherently bad idea, but changing the nomination process or instating term limits may be a good idea in the future. We can't really stop Trump, but maybe we can at least improve things for the future.
The Supreme Court is meant to be the final ruling on actual consitutionality, but it's become incredibly politicized. It's no longer a matter of appointing a judge who has sound constitutional theories, but who shares your political and/or religious ideology and will push it through regardless. It's an increasingly toxic system, and one which has the potential to be seriously abused. Trump is coming into this during a time in which, by sheer chance, he will likely have the potential to make a [B]dramatic[/B] and [B]long lasting[/B] shift to the balance of the court-- potentially much more so than most other presidents.
Should the power of the president be thus multiplied by [I]lucky timing[/I]? Trump, a president who is extremely unlikely to serve a second term, could leave his mark on the supreme court for decades, fundamentally altering the process by which we determine whether legislative proposals ([I]such as forcing Muslims to register to a religious database...[/I]) are deemed constitutionally appropriate?
[quote] but he has net negatives on people’s confidence of whether he can respect people he disagrees with and make “wise decisions about war and peace.”[/quote]
basically people are optimistic about trump but also certain he's not at all able to maintain the temperament and dignity of the presidency.... OK I'm going to go hit my head against a wall a few more times
Trump, whether he had won or lost, good or bad at the job, has certainly opened a variety of doors that won't be closed.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51388110]Redefining the role of the Supreme Court is an inherently bad idea, but changing the nomination process or instating term limits may be a good idea in the future. We can't really stop Trump, but maybe we can at least improve things for the future.
The Supreme Court is meant to be the final ruling on actual consitutionality, but it's become incredibly politicized. It's no longer a matter of appointing a judge who has sound constitutional theories, but who shares your political and/or religious ideology and will push it through regardless. It's an increasingly toxic system, and one which has the potential to be seriously abused. Trump is coming into this during a time in which, by sheer chance, he will likely have the potential to make a [B]dramatic[/B] and [B]long lasting[/B] shift to the balance of the court-- potentially much more so than most other presidents.
Should the power of the president be thus multiplied by [I]lucky timing[/I]? Trump, a president who is extremely unlikely to serve a second term, could leave his mark on the supreme court for decades, fundamentally altering the process by which we determine whether legislative proposals ([I]such as forcing Muslims to register to a religious database...[/I]) are deemed constitutionally appropriate?[/QUOTE]
I don't think term limits are the right idea at all. If the Courts are incredibly politicised, how would term limits somehow lessen that? The point of Justices having life-long tenures (or at least until retirement age) is so that they don't have to run for re-nomination; so they can't be pressured by their party to rule one way or another. They can simply do their job objectively and to the best of their ability, without having to worry about their political career. You can't threaten a Justice with 'oh if you rule this way, we'll never consider you for a position ever again', because Justices either [i]die[/i] in office, or are too old to work after they retire.
If they have term limits where they can re-apply for their position, you'll absolutely have Justices making decisions based on politics rather than merit, in the hopes that their own party will be in government when their term is due for renewal. Even without term limits (say a Justice can be nominated to the Supreme Court for ten years, but can only serve once), you'll also have Justices ruling based on political interests, so that they might be offered other positions such as Governorships or Senate seats after their term is over.
The nomination process should be changed, but term limits should never be a thing for Justices.
How has the Supreme Court become a political body? It has existed [B]since 1789[/B] and now all the sudden it's a bad idea?
[editline]17th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=BF;51388247]...[/QUOTE]
This, 100%.
It hasn't become a political body but it has become politicized.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51387894]Trump does not have groups subverting the education system to indoctrinate people into its dogma. Trump has not taken over various media orgs to ensure or give and edge to a certain parties' candidates during election. Trump is not threatening and harassing electoral voters to change their vote. One side isn't out rioting to intimidate people into changing their views. Trump won his primaries fairly (unlike Clinton who has subverted her party's primaries or her parties democratic process.)
Im sorry but any one who acting all fascist during this election is the left.
I guess I am accelerationist.[/QUOTE]
Neither does Clinton. Neither did Clinton. Neither is Clinton. The left is not out rioting, some angry people are. The primaries were indeed a bit shady, but that's entirely divested from fascism.
The Democratic Party and the mainstream left are not engaging in any of the things you stated except for perhaps media collusion, which is not fascism, just shady politics. How about you talk about something real instead of implying lies about a candidate.
its really too early to figure out whether or not people are actually optimistic, other than the constant "give him a chance" or "nothing bad has happened yet" rhetoric.
yes he won fair and square but the cabinet he currently has and is forming is very questionable and partly terrible, and his plans/statements for tackling issues are vague and wishy washy, and it's clear that he still has a lot to learn about being the POTUS.
i'd probably take this more seriously when he gets inaugurated and starts making actual moves.
How can you possibly be optimistic with a climate change denier in office?
We're (the planet) fucked anyway. This just seems like the nail in the coffin.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.