It's more like a third.
> 35% approve, 61% disapprove, 5% not sure
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
> 35% approve, 61% disapprove, 5% not sure
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
I also gotta wonder what percentage of this group is amplified beyond reality by bot armies and hostile foreign actors. There can't really be that many people so completely detached from reality, can there?
isn't really the crux of the problem with modern day USofA, more and more people are completely attached to their algo tuned bubble, curated for them by the data scientists of <insert techno silo here>.
It's not just the hostile bot armies of foreign actors tugging on the strings of perception, the distortion is coming from inside the borders.
> ... the distortion is coming from inside the borders.
Yeah, this really does contribute significantly to the whole problem. It's all kinda terrifying really. Like living in a waking nightmare.
Social media destroyed local media and turned to making money instead of informing the populace.
Let's have another lawsuit about Facebook killing our democracy.
In Texas, it is widely known that the Trump family are experts in crypto finance, and worthy of the gains they have made. (also that sharia law is widely practiced)
When people that aren't highly educated have no source of accurate current events, they have a warped view of reality.
By the way two important social media strategies whether on TV or in text forums are,
1) appear unflappable
2) never deviate from the talking points
Read (1) and (2) with an implied parenthetical phrase: "when in public"
These are effective because the other side usually settles for small wins of seeing their counterpart flinch, feel lost or embarrassed i.e. to win in a fleeting way. Therefore, to the degree you can keep a straight face the better you deflect these small wins ... in public.
It has a strong secondary benefit of removing from context common sense, consistency i.e. the realm of cause/effect, policy where reality is more closely aligned. And when that goes out the window, your runway to BS is 10x longer.
Ejecting family wrongly arrested, misidentified, or those have followed the law (meager and crappy as it is sometimes), or who are denied due process is not unalloyed win in private people claim in public. Even if the guy is here is illegal and should be removed ... there's kids, money, and other dependencies involved. It's not the clean win people say.
What goes on off camera and off the HTML page is a whole other reality.
Here's an anecdote I heard personally: a guy I know went to Mar a Largo for a business function not related to Trump, but as a club house selling its meeting rooms and menu for revenue. My buddy is a non-white guy of considerable wealth, business success, and connections. This guy allegedly ran into Harris Faulkner (FOX news host) . During chit-chat she said she told this guy she does not associate with everything she says on camera. She continued to explain by saying she presents a viewpoint her employer pays her to convey.
"ICE deported my wife. She was legal and was following the rules. I still love my Donald and will vote for him again"
And Congress as a whole...
> The approval rating for the U.S. Congress stands at 10%, while disapproval has climbed to 86%, according to data from Gallup. [1]
So not sure what this is really telling us?
[0]: https://fiftyplusone.news/polls/favorability/democratic-part... [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/708722/disapproval-congress-tie...
Diffuse organizations like "Congress" or "the party" aren't what you're voting for. Unfortunately Congress really does take it on the chin for the actions of the President in midterms, because that's very recognizable and personalized, and partisan votes (or just staying home) are the only lever people have to express displeasure.
I honestly think most Congress people want to do good for the country. But the system has become totally dysfunctional making it basically impossible to really work on issues. The influence of money is just too much. To me this goes hand in hand with the rising inequality that gives a few people at the top outsized influence. Super PACs don't even have to deploy their money anymore. The simple threat is already enough to bring most Congress people in line if they want to keep their job.
That seems wildly unlikely. Wouldn't there be evidence for it by now? Over the last decades there have been scant murmurs of the US congress sitting down and taking a serious look at what might be good for a country. I'm happy to say that the root cause is a voting public in the US (everywhere, really) rewarding unprincipled liars and punishing principled politicians. But the outcome is that the US Congress is full of unprincipled liars who have little regard for the good of the country, because that would be a principle that gets in the way of political expediency.
The system isn't some abstract concept foisted upon them from on high. They control it. There are some very high-level constraints on them that are all-weather good ideas and apart from that it is a free-for-all. The reason the system is dysfunctional is because that suits the congresspeople.
They may like some republican stances (say, reduced regulations and welfare spending), but despise others (Trump, wars, anti-renewable). Meanwhile they might like some democrat stances (Inclusivity, environment), but not others (high spending, rent controls, etc).
So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place where there's no good way to express your desires. I can totally understand not wanting to vote in such an environment, and disliking the government no matter what. You can't get your specific views represented because everything has been collapsed into two broad camps that average out - and as lots of research shows, no one is truly average.
No private meetings either. I have repeatedly called both his local office and his DC office. If I have a donation, a staffer will meet with me.
His philosophy is simple "You love Donald, I love Donald". It is the focus of the mailers that are sent out every quarter.
This elections democrat has no polling. The prediction markets give her an 8% chance of winning.