Serious Question for Trump voters/supporters. Are you embarrassed by anything yet?

[GMDino]

(07-31-2017, 07:20 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I voted for Trump and still would.  What have the Dems done to change my mind except not accept the election results.

This question is about what TRUMP has done (and not done)...not about the Democrats. 

[Vlad]

(07-31-2017, 04:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Seriously.

Have any of you reconsidered your vote/support?

Or at least shook your head in surprise or amazement at how Trump acts and "governs"?

Edit: Post is anonymous.  No one will know how you voted.

Cute what you did there. My how considerate you are by making the poll anonymous because Trump supporters are supposed to be embarrassed.

Have I reconsidered my vote?  Not in the least.
Trump is doing a fantastic job. Life is good...except for liberals who live to piss and moan about something.

[Vas Deferens]

Blind leading the dumber (somehow) blind.

I wouldn't be embarrassed if I didn't understand the meaning of simple words either.

#thumbsinearsfingersovereyes

#whocaresaboutfuturegenerationsatleastitisntablackguygoddamnit

[GMDino]

(07-31-2017, 11:08 PM)Vlad Wrote: Cute what you did there. My how considerate you are by making the poll anonymous because Trump supporters are supposed to be embarrassed.

Have I reconsidered my vote?  Not in the least.
Trump is doing a fantastic job. Life is good...except for liberals who live to piss and moan about something.

I figured there might be someone who either voted for Trump and doesn't want to admit it, or has actual concerns but doesn't want to give up the fight.

[Vlad]

(07-31-2017, 05:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Lucie and Bfine are both restricted from P&R, leaving like 2 Trump voters in P&R. Do we really need a poll for ~2 people? Lol
 

 
He couldn't care less about a poll. He coulda just asked all two people point blank if they still support Trump.
Similar to a loaded question. Makes a poll anonymous based on a false presupposition that Trump voters are embarrassed, so by answering the poll you are admitting to being embarrassed.

[GMDino]

(07-31-2017, 11:08 PM)Vlad Wrote: Cute what you did there. My how considerate you are by making the poll anonymous because Trump supporters are supposed to be embarrassed.

(07-31-2017, 11:35 PM)Vlad Wrote:  
He couldn't care less about a poll. He coulda just asked all two people point blank if they still support Trump.
Similar to a loaded question. Makes a poll anonymous based on a false presupposition that Trump voters are embarrassed, so by answering the poll you are admitting to being embarrassed.

(07-31-2017, 11:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I figured there might be someone who either voted for Trump and doesn't want to admit it, or has actual concerns but doesn't want to give up the fight.

Of course someone could just answer "no". That wouldn't mean they were embarrassed at all.

However (since I'm feeling up to it tonight) this is a legitimate, serious question. Given the embarrassing things the POTUS has said and done over the last six months, his lack of actual accomplishments, his tweets, etc I have asked many voters here, on FB, in real life, if they are reconsidered at all.

Some have doubts, most say that he was better than Clinton, a few have said they can't believe they voted for him and would not again.

[Millhouse]

I didnt support either candidate, and I feel good for not voting for either of them. It was a lose-lose imo, so I just stuck with local & state stuff.

[Dill]

(07-31-2017, 07:20 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I voted for Trump and still would.  What have the Dems done to change my mind except not accept the election results.

How have Democrats not accepted election results?

You would vote for a guy who doesn't know anything about government. That was clear before the election and it is clearer after. The people who said he would grow into office turned out to be wrong.

He just embarrassed the nation in front of the Boy Scouts of America. He encouraged police to manhandle those they arrest. He hired a foulmouth for COMMUNICATIONS director and had to get rid of him in less than two weeks.

Nothing but national embarrassment and chaos of six months, as the US position in the world weakens. 

You chose incompetence over competence. Why is that good for you or for the country? Why does that still look like a good choice?

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-31-2017, 05:48 PM)jason Wrote: Nothing that has happened in the last 190 plus days is surprising. If they weren't embarrassed to support him while he campaigned, I fail to see why they would be embarrassed now.

This.

These people should have been embarrassed to vote for him to begin with, but I don't see what he's done that these extremists weren't cheering for.  Nothing about him has changed. Did anyone think it was going to?

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-01-2017, 12:02 PM)Dill Wrote: How have Democrats not accepted election results?

Russia.

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2017, 05:26 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Russia.

So, an investigation with bi-partisan support is not accepting the election results? I mean, I know a lot of us ***** about the electoral college, but I've only ever seen Trump and his base try to claim the vote numbers were wrong.

[SunsetBengal]

Am I embarrassed for voting for Trump? No.

Am I embarrassed at the behavior of Congress (particularly the GOP) for not rallying behind, or supporting their President? Yes.

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2017, 05:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Am I embarrassed for voting for Trump? No.

Am I embarrassed at the behavior of Congress (particularly the GOP) for not rallying behind, or supporting their President? Yes.

I, personally, do not understand this attitude. The POTUS is not the head of the legislature, they are not in charge of it in any way, they are not superior to them or their leader. Especially when a POTUS has an agenda that is contrary to the party platform he was elected under there is zero reason why those in Congress should support the policies of the POTUS.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-01-2017, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I, personally, do not understand this attitude. The POTUS is not the head of the legislature, they are not in charge of it in any way, they are not superior to them or their leader. Especially when a POTUS has an agenda that is contrary to the party platform he was elected under there is zero reason why those in Congress should support the policies of the POTUS.

Because many of those in Congress ran on some of the very same points in the President's agenda.  The biggest being the repeal and replace of the ACA.  The mere fact that Congress as an entity can't sit down and come up with a plan that works for most of Americans, is mind boggling.  Studies show that more people have been adversely affected by the ACA, than those who have benefitted from it.  Yet, when they consider going back to free market, Leftists complain that 24 Million Americans would then be without health care coverage.  However, I hear and read polls that say that without a mandate, over 15 Million Americans wouldn't even purchase coverage.  So, let's ponder for a moment, 24M minus 15M equals 9M, or roughly 3% of all Americans.  Certainly those in that 3% can be absorbed into some sort of medicade expansion program.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-01-2017, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because many of those in Congress ran on some of the very same points in the President's agenda.  The biggest being the repeal and replace of the ACA.  The mere fact that Congress as an entity can't sit down and come up with a plan that works for most of Americans, is mind boggling.  Studies show that more people have been adversely affected by the ACA, than those who have benefitted from it.  Yet, when they consider going back to free market, Leftists complain that 24 Million Americans would then be without health care coverage.  However, I hear and read polls that say that without a mandate, over 15 Million Americans wouldn't even purchase coverage.  So, let's ponder for a moment, 24M minus 15M equals 9M, or roughly 3% of all Americans.  Certainly those in that 3% can be absorbed into some sort of medicade expansion program.

I'd like to see those studies because I don't believe them. Obamacare eliminates lifetime caps on coverage which means your insurance can't stop paying for your treatment. Insurance companies can't deny you or a family member due to a pre-existing condition. Every policy must include a bare minimum of services so insurance companies can't sell you a POS policy. Those are just three points which positively affects everyone who has insurance. Even those policies which aren't Obamacare policies. Obamacare isn't perfect and definitely has its share of warts, but it is head and shoulders superior to anything the Republicans have proposed.

A Medicaid expansion was part of Obamacare, but has been voted down in at least 19 states if I remember correctly.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-01-2017, 06:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'd like to see those studies because I don't believe them. Obamacare eliminates lifetime caps on coverage which means your insurance can't stop paying for your treatment. Insurance companies can't deny you or a family member due to a pre-existing condition. Every policy must include a bare minimum of services so insurance companies can't sell you a POS policy. Those are just three points which positively affects everyone who has insurance. Even those policies which aren't Obamacare policies. Obamacare isn't perfect and definitely has its share of warts, but it is head and shoulders superior to anything the Republicans have proposed.

So then, why are providers drying up in some markets?  We're not talking about the bulk of working Americans that have employer sponsored health coverage, or the Seniors on Medicare, or even the indigents on Medicade, but that small percentage that must purchase their individual policies on the exchanges.

[Bengalzona]

Trump and his admin have actually done quite a bit, within the context of the powers they have available (executive orders, policies within departments, etc.). Almost all of it is bad, in my personal opinion.

A lot of the stuff going on in the Admin, such as the tweets and the staff shake-ups, are merely magician slight-of-hand tricks to focus the media and critics' attention away from the things the admin are really doing. This is what Trump does best: get you to watch the left hand while the right hand pulls the trick. But he doesn't just pull this trick on liberals/progressives/Democrats. He also plays this on conservatives/Republicans.

[*jason*]

(08-01-2017, 05:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Am I embarrassed for voting for Trump? No.

Am I embarrassed at the behavior of Congress (particularly the GOP) for not rallying behind, or supporting their President? Yes.

Perhaps they (GOP members of Congress) are in their minds putting country before party. I've heard Hannity whining how he believes Republicans don't want Trump to be successful. Do you believe that? I personally just think Congress is ineffective, while the president is incompetent. I'm sure those in "his" party that haven't rallied around him have their own reasons. If he insulted your wife and father as he did Ted Cruz, I'm sure you may not rally around him either. Maybe that's just me though.

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2017, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because many of those in Congress ran on some of the very same points in the President's agenda.  The biggest being the repeal and replace of the ACA.  The mere fact that Congress as an entity can't sit down and come up with a plan that works for most of Americans, is mind boggling.  Studies show that more people have been adversely affected by the ACA, than those who have benefitted from it.  Yet, when they consider going back to free market, Leftists complain that 24 Million Americans would then be without health care coverage.  However, I hear and read polls that say that without a mandate, over 15 Million Americans wouldn't even purchase coverage.  So, let's ponder for a moment, 24M minus 15M equals 9M, or roughly 3% of all Americans.  Certainly those in that 3% can be absorbed into some sort of medicade expansion program.

The issue is that those that really want a free market solution for health care would like to dismantle social insurance programs entirely. So expanding those programs in an effort to provide coverage for more Americans would be too much for them. You're not wrong, the estimate of 14-15 million losing insurance being those that would drop it if there was no mandate is accurate and would be the immediate loss. The remaining amount, which varies depending on the version of the bill, is a result of instability in the insurance market, premium increases, and a number of other things.

The ACA is bad policy. I say as much every time we have conversations about it. But it's also the most conservative way to increase health insurance coverage. In order for there to be a policy implemented that would increase those covered in the US, it would have to be a more liberal policy effort and would reach beyond just health insurance.

But anyway, this is the issue. Yeah, a lot of them ran on repeal and replace, but replace it with what?

[SunsetBengal]

(08-01-2017, 07:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue is that those that really want a free market solution for health care would like to dismantle social insurance programs entirely. So expanding those programs in an effort to provide coverage for more Americans would be too much for them. You're not wrong, the estimate of 14-15 million losing insurance being those that would drop it if there was no mandate is accurate and would be the immediate loss. The remaining amount, which varies depending on the version of the bill, is a result of instability in the insurance market, premium increases, and a number of other things.

The ACA is bad policy. I say as much every time we have conversations about it. But it's also the most conservative way to increase health insurance coverage. In order for there to be a policy implemented that would increase those covered in the US, it would have to be a more liberal policy effort and would reach beyond just health insurance.

But anyway, this is the issue. Yeah, a lot of them ran on repeal and replace, but replace it with what?

Well, I'm not an expert in the industry, and I won't even remotely claim to be.  But, from a citizen's point of view, customers not being able to purchase health coverage over State lines seems to be a big issue in restriction of free market solution.  Since the Federal Government feels compelled to be involved, why not do something to help the matter?  Why not make every company that wishes to provide health coverage in the US, be Federally Licensed to do so, in the entire US?