Half of Americans want Trump impeached -- but his supporters want to give him dictatorial power

PPP's new national poll finds that Donald Trump's popularity as President has declined precipitously just over the last two weeks. On our first poll of his Presidency voters were evenly divided on Trump, with 44% approving of him and 44% also disapproving. Now his approval rating is 43%, while his disapproval has gone all the way up to 53%. If voters could choose they'd rather have both Barack Obama (52/44) or Hillary Clinton (49/45) instead of Trump.

Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed. Support for impeaching Trump has crept up from 35% 2 weeks ago, to 40% last week, to its 46% standing this week. While Clinton voters initially only supported Trump's impeachment 65/14, after seeing him in office over the last few weeks that's gone up already to 83/6.

***

-Voters are concerned by the implications of Trump's fight with the Judiciary. 53% of voters say they trust Judges more to make the right decisions for the United States, to only 38% who trust Trump more. And only 25% of voters think Trump should be able to overturn decisions by Judges that he disagrees with, to 64% who don't think he should be able to do that. Trump voters have evidently had enough of the Constitution and those pesky checks and balances though- 51% of them think he should personally be able to overturn decisions he doesn't agree with, to only 33% who dissent.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Fine example of misdirection and begging for support, from another poster

I was never confused and by the fact, you are still pissed over being wrong, that non US citizens do have rights under the US constitution, eats you up.
Hey, you have to live with that, not me

So Dean is wrong and here is why

Ever heard of civil rights?
You know, that Liberal policy, you excercize daily?
The one where you are here now bitching against that very same principle and policy?
Civil rights to protest against anything?

Everyone has a right, not to be happy with their situation. To say people should just accept that. Is like saying to a man who has had his wife cheat on him a thousand times. That the majority of his friends accept that she has, and he should just accept it.

What people like you are attempting to do, is poorly try to silence people, saying wrongly they have no right, to counter the current Presidency.

In simpleton terms, that is just plain horseshit.

Of course anyone can stand up to prejudice and discrimination.

If not, you would not even be able to buy, let alone reside, in a country, you were not born to.

Progressive Liberal values, allowed you to that


Many Clinton supporters also did not go out rioting.
You clearly did protest against Labour for 13 years online, when they were in power.
And yet you then stupidly, equate people against Trump, airing their views online to comparability to those who commit violence.

Its as dumb as it gets to equate off. You are dealing with people vocal here, just like you, on things they are against. So to  equate rioting by some idiots and then claiming people should accept a situation. Of which you never did with Labour in power. That they should just knuckle under, based off the actions of violent people. Shows even more how ridiculous an argument you are making. You are equating rioters, to people expressing their views against Trump online.

They are not even comparable

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

you are a very angry person. Have you ever considered anger management, I am told it can work wonders.,

Thorin wrote:Oh an why I know your constitution better than you Independent?
I studied American Politics at school

14th Amendment

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I shall now await your apology

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the business of government should be to protect the people, empty the trash and make sure the transport system works.
It certainly should not be involved in every minute aspect of peoples lives.

Trash?

Who is the trash in your books?

Please defined based off their usefulness to need to the system

Those that cannot pay into the system?

The homeless?
Some of the disabled?
Every single citizen when born to the ages of 16?
The elderly?
The sick?
The poor?
Ect

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you are a very angry person. Have you ever considered anger management, I am told it can work wonders.,

More misdirection.

How can I be angry, when I know you are stalling answering?

I find it very funny to watch you squirm Dean, as you are now.

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:Oh an why I know your constitution better than you Independent?
I studied American Politics at school

14th Amendment

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I shall now await your apology

gosh you are so clever, but what does that have to do with immigration and the executive order. Non of those people being discussed are citizens naturalised or otherwise. Or have I somehow missed the bit where america annexed somalia, syria, iraq etc and made all their citizens american.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
gosh you are so clever, but what does that have to do with immigration and the executive order. Non of those people being discussed are citizens naturalised or otherwise. Or have I somehow missed the bit where america annexed somalia, syria, iraq etc and made all their citizens american.

It has everything to do with answering Independents post, which as seen proves Independent was wrong.
The executive order was unconstitutional.
Which means even non-US citizens have rights.
They have a right to life, liberty or property within due process of the law.
Independent, claimed they have no rights.
Independent, was wrong.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

More misdirection.

How can I be angry, when I know you are stalling answering?

I find it very funny to watch you squirm Dean, as you are now.

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

I am not answering becasue you really are not worth wasting my time on as you are a very petty individual who could make grudge holding an olympic sport. when you make a point worth replying to then I will address it.
you aint as clever as you think you are. you dont even know what trash is for gods sake

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

It has everything to do with answering Independents post, which as seen proves Independent was wrong.
The executive order was unconstitutional.
Which means even non-US citizens have rights.
They have a right to life, liberty or property within due process of the law.
Independent, claimed they have no rights.
Independent, was wrong.

although that power was granted to presidents by congress in the 50's I think

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I am not answering becasue you really are not worth wasting my time on as you are a very petty individual who could make grudge holding an olympic sport. when you make a point worth replying to then I will address it.
you aint as clever as you think you are. you dont even know what trash is for gods sake

So you are still misdirecting and talking about me, because you know if you answered honestly, you would look a hypocritical dick.

I am clever, as I just made you run around in a circle avoiding answering my question,

Its shows I reeled you in, because you are ruled by your emotions Dean. You never saw entrapment coming. You fell right in, because your views here as seen were born from the highest hypocrisy.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you are still misdirecting and talking about me, because you know if you answered honestly, you would look a hypocritical dick.

I am clever, as I just made you run around in a circle avoiding answering my question,

Its shows I reeled you in, because you are ruled by your emotions Dean. You never saw entrapment coming. You fell right in, because your views here as seen were born from the highest hypocrisy.

no dear boy, you just think you made me do anything because you are incapable of seeing your own faults.
you dont need to keep telling us how clever you are, we already know that because you never stop telling us.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
although that power was granted to presidents by congress in the 50's I think

The power to deny life without due process?

That means they still have rights

Do I need to continually educate your lack of understanding everyday?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The power to deny life without due process?

That means they still have rights

Do I need to continually educate your lack of understanding everyday?

the power that trump used in the executive order. do try and keep up Mr clever.

Thorin wrote:
Oh an why I know your constitution better than you Independent?

Thorin wrote:
I studied American Politics at school

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
Oh an why I know your constitution better than you Independent?

Oh, boy... What kind of self-concocted grandiose mirage of self-delusion have you convinced yourself of, this time?

Thorin wrote:
I studied American Politics at school

Really?  Whatever became of that?  From the way you talk in these threads, I hope your teacher pulled you aside and encouraged you to follow a different path because I don't think you learned too much.

Instead of empty shouts of "You're wrong!", why don't you do what other civil debaters do, such as myself:
Provide facts and sources.  See?  Simple.
Now, run along and find those "sources".  We'll be waiting for you when you get back.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
Oh an why I know your constitution better than you Independent?

Oh, boy... What kind of self-concocted grandiose mirage of self-delusion have you convinced yourself of, this time?

Thorin wrote:
I studied American Politics at school

Really?  Whatever became of that?  From the way you talk in these threads, I hope your teacher pulled you aside and encouraged you to follow a different path because I don't think you learned too much.

Instead of empty shouts of "You're wrong!", why don't you do what other civil debaters do, such as myself:
Provide facts and sources.  See?  Simple.
Now, run along and find those "sources".  We'll be waiting for you when you get back.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Oh, boy... What kind of self-concocted grandiose mirage of self-delusion have you convinced yourself of, this time?



Really?  Whatever became of that?  From the way you talk in these threads, I hope your teacher pulled you aside and encouraged you to follow a different path because I don't think you learned too much.

Instead of empty shouts of "You're wrong!", why don't you do what other civil debaters do, such as myself:
Provide facts and sources.  See?  Simple.
Now, run along and find those "sources".  We'll be waiting for you when you get back.

without fear of being accused of currying favour I have to say

chortle

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the power that trump used in the executive order. do try and keep up Mr clever.

What power?
It was unconstitutional
As stopped by the judges
Anyway, what is that, it does not work?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
Oh an why I know your constitution better than you Independent?

Oh, boy... What kind of self-concocted grandiose mirage of self-delusion have you convinced yourself of, this time?

Thorin wrote:
I studied American Politics at school

Really?  Whatever became of that?  From the way you talk in these threads, I hope your teacher pulled you aside and encouraged you to follow a different path because I don't think you learned too much.

Instead of empty shouts of "You're wrong!", why don't you do what other civil debaters do, such as myself:
Provide facts and sources.  See?  Simple.
Now, run along and find those "sources".  We'll be waiting for you when you get back.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

What power?
It was unconstitutional
As stopped by the judges
Anyway, what is that, it does not work?

what doesn't?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
what doesn't?

Your ability to think independently.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Your ability to think independently.

what next, my dad's bigger than your dad.
you do make I larf. but not with you  

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
So far he has had his arse handed to him on a plate over attempting to fuck with the constitution, by judges.

Pfft... hardly.
The 9th Circuit court is one of the top 2 most Liberal and most overturned courts in the nation.

Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court

That's right.  8 out of 10 cases that are heard by the 9th Circuit are overturned.
It's filled with Liberals that fancy themselves as "activist Judges".  Their way of carrying picket signs and hurling eggs at political foes, is to assert their power in a non-judicial manner.  They wrongly attempt to legislate from the bench, instead of mediating from it.  It's not their place to try to construe a law to fit their Liberal narrative -- their job is to read the law from the four corners of the pages it was written on and faithfully interpret the law's spirit and intent.

That court is a disgrace to objective courts and judges, everywhere.  It's rejection rate speaks volumes of the judges' incompetence.

Sorry, Liberals.  All this "win" means is that, statistically speaking, this case has an 80% chance of being overruled.

Thorin wrote:
I shall now await your apology

The Political Insider wrote:
...in 1866, the actual author of the post-Civil War Amendment – Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan – explained the real purpose of his amendment.

Unfortunately for liberals, it was only for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. In fact, it didn’t even include Native Americans.

Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

OQ wrote:
Nonsense.

OQ's source wrote:
The Circuit Courts have the following reversal rates between 2010 - 2015: 6th Circuit - 87 percent; 11th Circuit - 85 percent; 9th Circuit - 79 percent...

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
I shall now await your apology

No... but you can keep asking for one.  Who knows, you might earn one someday.  Just not on this topic.

The Political Insider wrote:
...in 1866, the actual author of the post-Civil War Amendment – Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan – explained the real purpose of his amendment.

Unfortunately for liberals, it was only for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. In fact, it didn’t even include Native Americans.

Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/man-who-wrote-14th-amendment-explains-it-liberals-are-furious/#ixzz4YKfSsv94

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:
Nonsense.

How?  Your link backs me up:

OQ's source wrote:
The Circuit Courts have the following reversal rates between 2010 - 2015: 6th Circuit - 87 percent; 11th Circuit - 85 percent; 9th Circuit - 79 percent...

My source says 80%.  Yours says 79%.  If you want that 1% so bad, you can have it.  The 9th Circuit is "only" overturned 79% of the time.  Happy?

Thorin wrote:
21% proves you wrong


You need a 100%

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:@Thorin
You strongly believe that the US Constitution applies to non-US citizens not in the US.
Show us your evidence.  Prove you're right.  The burden of proof is on you since I have shown time and time again that I'm right.  As everyone on this site already knows, I'm always right.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:
Nonsense.

How?  Your link backs me up:

OQ's source wrote:
The Circuit Courts have the following reversal rates between 2010 - 2015: 6th Circuit - 87 percent; 11th Circuit - 85 percent; 9th Circuit - 79 percent...

My source says 80%.  Yours says 79%.  If you want that 1% so bad, you can have it.  The 9th Circuit is "only" overturned 79% of the time.  Happy?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
21% proves you wrong


You need a 100%

You need 100% for what? For a court to be completely wrong 100% of the time??

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thorin, you're not a US citizen and you're not on US soil.
What rights do you have that are protected under the US Constitution?
I'm not asking for a list.  Just name one.  Go ahead.  We're waiting. Yep... waiting.  Still, just... waiting.
[whistles and looks around in boredom]

IT wrote:My source says 80%.  Yours says 79%.  If you want that 1% so bad, you can have it.  The 9th Circuit is "only" overturned 79% of the time.

OQ wrote:
...when it comes to reversal rates, which given the volume of cases it deals with, and the importance, is pretty good.

Ben wrote:
Doesn't matter now, since Trump's not appealing to the Supreme Court anyway ...

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thorin, you're not a US citizen and you're not on US soil.
What rights do you have that are protected under the US Constitution?
I'm not asking for a list.  Just name one.  Go ahead.  We're waiting. Yep... waiting.  Still, just... waiting.
[whistles and looks around in boredom]

Supreme Court ruling on Military Commissions Act of 2006

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.

the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.

The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices. It has finally given the men held at Guantanamo the justice that they have long deserved. By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding. This six-year-long nightmare is a lesson in how fragile our constitutional protections truly are in the hands of an overzealous executive.

Lord Independent Thoughts the Great and Almighty wrote:
Thorin, you're not a US citizen and you're not on US soil.
What rights do you have that are protected under the US Constitution?
I'm not asking for a list. Just name one. Go ahead. We're waiting. Yep... waiting. Still, just... waiting.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thorin,

1 - Read the first sentence of section 1.  That's the "any person" referred to in your emphasized quote.

2 - Gitmo Prisoners are on US soil.  Any US embassy or federally held properties are considered "US soil".  Your arguments strengthens my argument --- not yours.  

Back to the drawing board.
Again, the challenge posed was:

Lord Independent Thoughts the Great and Almighty wrote:
What rights do you have that are protected under the US Constitution?
I'm not asking for a list. Just name one. Go ahead. We're waiting. Yep... waiting. Still, just... waiting.

And, we're just waiting some more and waiting and waiting and...
Does anyone want to sing "100,000 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" while we wait?
Better yet, since he'll never produce a real answer, anyone want to sing "Infinity number of Beers of the Wall"?

Lord Independent Thoughts the Great and Almighty wrote:
Thorin, you're not a US citizen and you're not on US soil.
What rights do you have that are protected under the US Constitution?
I'm not asking for a list. Just name one. Go ahead. We're waiting. Yep... waiting. Still, just... waiting.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Correct.  They are being detained on US soil, and that's why they have limited rights.  Just as I said.

You claim that anyone in the world is entitled to our Constitutional rights.

Again,

Lord Independent Thoughts the Great and Almighty wrote:
Thorin, you're not a US citizen and you're not on US soil.
What rights do you have that are protected under the US Constitution?
I'm not asking for a list. Just name one. Go ahead. We're waiting. Yep... waiting. Still, just... waiting.

Name ONE Constitutional right you have... or concede that you must bow to my greatness.
Kiss the ring.

Thorin wrote:
Everyone in the world is entitled

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
Everyone in the world is entitled

Wrong answer.
FAIL!

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Such false sense of entitlement.
What's worse is that you still can't name a single right you're "entitled" to.

Pucker up and kiss the ring.