wtf? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, why you're so sarcastic, and why you're attacking the author. Are you saying that it isn't politically impracticable to denounce violence committed by...
wtf? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, why you're so sarcastic, and why you're attacking the author. Are you saying that it isn't politically impracticable to denounce violence committed by your own country? There's a difference between morally denouncing the United States and denouncing violence committed by the United States. Right? Or has violence become integrated into the very soul of the United States that the two can't be separated? I don't think the SocDem candidates would be shooting themselves in the foot by saying they're flatly opposed to war with Iran. According to the article, Sanders "acknowledges U.S. provocation and rejects the notion that Iran is a true threat" and he's doing alright.
i really don't buy this premise as meaning anything considering that donald lost people whose top rated issue was foreign policy by 60-34 to hillary clinton, who didn't exactly have great foreign...
As I mentioned in the original comment denunciations of "American violence" will be twisted into attack ads, media vitriol from all the networks, numerous Trump tweets about how the Democrats are okay with Iran attacking oil tankers. It's simply not sound campaign strategy to hobble yourself like that.
i really don't buy this premise as meaning anything considering that donald lost people whose top rated issue was foreign policy by 60-34 to hillary clinton, who didn't exactly have great foreign policy herself and is probably going to be outdone in that front by anybody who is nominated in 2020 purely because the next nominee is going to be more likable to people than clinton ever was or will be. one of donald's weakest issues by far is foreign policy, and absolutely nobody is itching to do something like go to war with iran. he might pull some of his base along with him on an idea like that, but his base is nowhere near a majority or even a plurality of the country.
i'm not really sure why it is you're generalizing, basing your opinions on where people stand through anecdotal evidence and a sample size of three, and trying to use that to talk down to people...
With that said, you are equating the reality of Trump's poor foreign policy record with the perception. I can tell you, from working with a wide swathe of people both rural and urban. The perception of Trump with many disconnected electorate is that he is a strong President. I have had arguments with three people so far that believe going to war with Iran is a good idea. You are discounting how easily your countrymen are persuaded.
i'm not really sure why it is you're generalizing, basing your opinions on where people stand through anecdotal evidence and a sample size of three, and trying to use that to talk down to people who both actually live in america and pay attention to where things stand but all the polling that gets conducted suggests the opposite of what conclusion you're drawing.
gallup, as of march this year, put him at 42-56 approval with respect to foreign affairs, 35-55 with respect to syria, 38-59 with respect to russia, and 47-48 with respect to china. his best issue, north korea, gets him 51-45 nationally and 46% with independents. on no other foreign issue does he crack 45% with independents.
AP/NORC found worse marks for him when they polled in january of this year and put him at 35-63.
on iran specifically, yougov found his handling of iran at 40-44 and his foreign policy in general at 41-45 with the electorate in their june 16-18 polling. yougov's results tend to be on the "better" end of things for him (insofar as still being underwater by at least 4 points on most things is better).
there is really nothing to suggest that it's anything more than a half and half issue with the electorate, much less the general public; there is considerably more evidence to suggest that donald's policies remain categorically unpopular--probably in the mid-50s disapproval, like his approval rating--with nearly everybody who's not already on his train, which is again nowhere near a majority or even plurality of the country.
I really can't call who is going to win the Democrat nomination. All the candidates seem to be flawed in some manner and I'm not too sure if any of them will have what it takes to challenge Trump....
I really can't call who is going to win the Democrat nomination. All the candidates seem to be flawed in some manner and I'm not too sure if any of them will have what it takes to challenge Trump.
Don't get me wrong, Trump is the most controversial president that the US has ever elected, but the Democrats don't have anyone outstanding like Obama to run against him.
wtf? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, why you're so sarcastic, and why you're attacking the author. Are you saying that it isn't politically impracticable to denounce violence committed by your own country? There's a difference between morally denouncing the United States and denouncing violence committed by the United States. Right? Or has violence become integrated into the very soul of the United States that the two can't be separated? I don't think the SocDem candidates would be shooting themselves in the foot by saying they're flatly opposed to war with Iran. According to the article, Sanders "acknowledges U.S. provocation and rejects the notion that Iran is a true threat" and he's doing alright.
i really don't buy this premise as meaning anything considering that donald lost people whose top rated issue was foreign policy by 60-34 to hillary clinton, who didn't exactly have great foreign policy herself and is probably going to be outdone in that front by anybody who is nominated in 2020 purely because the next nominee is going to be more likable to people than clinton ever was or will be. one of donald's weakest issues by far is foreign policy, and absolutely nobody is itching to do something like go to war with iran. he might pull some of his base along with him on an idea like that, but his base is nowhere near a majority or even a plurality of the country.
i'm not really sure why it is you're generalizing, basing your opinions on where people stand through anecdotal evidence and a sample size of three, and trying to use that to talk down to people who both actually live in america and pay attention to where things stand but all the polling that gets conducted suggests the opposite of what conclusion you're drawing.
gallup, as of march this year, put him at 42-56 approval with respect to foreign affairs, 35-55 with respect to syria, 38-59 with respect to russia, and 47-48 with respect to china. his best issue, north korea, gets him 51-45 nationally and 46% with independents. on no other foreign issue does he crack 45% with independents.
AP/NORC found worse marks for him when they polled in january of this year and put him at 35-63.
on iran specifically, yougov found his handling of iran at 40-44 and his foreign policy in general at 41-45 with the electorate in their june 16-18 polling. yougov's results tend to be on the "better" end of things for him (insofar as still being underwater by at least 4 points on most things is better).
there is really nothing to suggest that it's anything more than a half and half issue with the electorate, much less the general public; there is considerably more evidence to suggest that donald's policies remain categorically unpopular--probably in the mid-50s disapproval, like his approval rating--with nearly everybody who's not already on his train, which is again nowhere near a majority or even plurality of the country.
Wow, okay. I totally disagree with your opinion and I'm not going to engage with you anymore. You're far too angry.
I really can't call who is going to win the Democrat nomination. All the candidates seem to be flawed in some manner and I'm not too sure if any of them will have what it takes to challenge Trump.
Don't get me wrong, Trump is the most controversial president that the US has ever elected, but the Democrats don't have anyone outstanding like Obama to run against him.