- Mar 23, 2004
- 248,794
- 114,491
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Is there a standard number of times I have to say something before you take me at my word?
Just seeking clarity.
Thank you.
Upvote
0
Is there a standard number of times I have to say something before you take me at my word?
He's his own worst enemy. He needs to change some fundamental things about himself, his personality, and the way he treats other human beings.Yes, as it stands today Trump's approval rating is 38%.
To improve on this what do you think he needs to do?
I've explained it twice now. That you feel the need to say this would seem to either mean you didn't read what I wrote (or cannot read it without an agenda) or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I stated to "win" some type of debate points.
Yes, Trump is so virtuous and innocent and everything has been stacked against him his whole life. How did he ever succeed, only starting out with a few million from his father, just a "poor" boy on the streets of NY trying to survive? [/sarcasm]
What is interesting to me, since you brought it up, is Trump's news coverage wasn't quite as negative as you are thinking, when you look at it historically. For example, “His coverage was negative from the start [of the general election] and never came close to entering positive territory,” writes Thomas E. Patterson, the Bradlee professor of government and the press at Harvard. “During his best weeks, the coverage ran 2-to-1 negative over positive. In his worst weeks, the ratio was more than 10-to-1. If there was a silver lining for Trump, it was that his two best weeks were the ones just preceding the November balloting.”
Yet, if you compare it to Obama in 2008, "One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone."
Interestingly how similar it is; particularly with the conservative claim that the media always loved and favored Obama.
No, if you read about what actually happened, it was a security issue with Air Force One, and not the Chinese or any lack of respect towards Obama and the US.
And, I'm sorry. What does Trump's treatment by the Chinese make Trump commendable? As others have speculated, it is just as likely that the Chinese know of Trump's ego, and lashing out if he feels he is slighted, so felt they needed to "pull out all the stops" so that the meeting would be productive. IN that case, I see nothing commendable at all in how the Chinese treated him; more like they treated him as a child that might throw a tantrum.
Whether that speculation is true, or not, how Trump is treated by the Chinese has nothing to do with how we should look at Trump -- the Chinese had their own reasons for doing it that have nothing to do with Trump's performance in office. By contrast, do you think we should look at how Germany feels about Trump, and the comments made, or the fact England actually discussed not allowing Trump in the country, to say Trump should have an even lower approval rating?
Are you saying that President Trump's royal reception by the President of China was a bad thing?
Was it a bad thing that the President of China invited President TRump into the Forbidden City?
What other Presidents were invited into the Forbidden City?
Former President Obama?
What was unclear about it? I am saying it is a neutral thing; the way the Chinese (or Germans, English, or any other nationality) treats my president on a state visit does not change my opinion about the President's job performance. I may agree about some observations they make, but the way the treat him doesn't change anything about the way he has performed his job.
That would depend on what advantages their flattery got them.
Every one that visited from Nixon onwards.
Yes:
He fails on that wall he fails as PresidentI honestly think the wall will be a drag on him if it’s construction started. Land confiscation, cost overruns, treaty disputes.
That would depend on what advantages their flattery got them.
Every one that visited from Nixon onwards.
Yes:
Why not? He started out with 46.1% of the vote, and he hasn't changed his ways or had any major accomplishments. He's losing the "anyone but Clinton" folks and others who hoped/assumed that he would change once he became President, and he's not making much of an attempt to attract supporters who would compensate for that loss.Bob, the "approval ratings" make no sense.
None.
Nada.
Re: former President's invitation into the Forbidden City, when was that?
2009
Was he invited to dinner inside the Forbidden City and an Opera performance?
I’m done repeating myself.
Why not? He started out with 46.1% of the vote, and he hasn't changed his ways or had any major accomplishments. He's losing the "anyone but Clinton" folks and others who hoped/assumed that he would change once he became President, and he's not making much of an attempt to attract supporters who would compensate for that loss.
China is a major power. To be on friendly, respectful terms with this major power is phenomenal. It's quite an accomplishment.
There are plenty of articles on the subject if you’re interested.I would like to correct this if it's wrong.
brinny said: ↑
China is a major power. To be on friendly, respectful terms with this major power is phenomenal. It's quite an accomplishment.
Yes, respect. Like staying out of their way when they build their illegal little islands, be quiet about little stuff like human rights, turn blind eye to their corporate espionage and making fakes. Respect.
Chinese are playing Trump like violin. Next thing they will probably give him a panda.
There are plenty of articles on the subject if you’re interested.