Republican Support Collapses Under Donald Trump
2026 Midterms are shaping up to produce a shift of control in the House of Representatives based on growing disdain for the Republican administration under President Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Support for the Republican Party has declined under President Donald Trump , a new poll of voter's congressional voting intentions has found.
Negative polls are early indicators of changing public opinion about Trump and his policies. A sustained backlash to his early actions as president—which included implementing tariffs and imposing a range of executive orders—could persuade him to change course or risk losing support from the electorate.
Sustaining public support is also important to Republicans in Congress , who hold a narrow majority in the House of Representatives. A loss of seven seats in the 2026 midterm elections could cost them control of the lower chamber.
An April 16 poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted by RMG Research, a public opinion research firm founded by conservative pollster Scott Rasmussen, for Napolitan News Service found that if an election for Congress were held today, 48 percent would vote for the Democrat on their ballot, while 44 percent would vote for the Republican .
When including those who would lean Democratic or Republican, the Democratic lead increased to 50 percent, while Republican support increased to 45 percent.
This marks a seven-point swing since February, according to the pollsters. Before Trump was inaugurated on January 20, Republicans had a seven-point lead of 51 percent to the Democrats' 44 percent.
The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
The poll follows an April Napolitan News Service survey that suggested 42 percent of respondents trusted Democrats more than Republicans on inflation, while 38 percent trusted Republicans more than Democrats on the same issue.
An April 13 poll found that for the first time since May 2021, the GOP was seen as less trustworthy than Democrats with the nation's finances.
According to a CNBC poll of 1,000 Americans, 43 percent approved of Trump's handling of the economy , while 55 percent disapproved—marking the first time a CNBC survey showed the president with a net negative on the economy.
William F. Hall, an adjunct professor of political science and business at Webster University in St. Louis, Missouri, previously told Newsweek : "It is my opinion, increasingly, in view of the extremely negative ratings experienced by a Republican led Administration, it does appear that, barring some highly unlikely unforeseen circumstances, the midterm elections will bring about a major shift in the makeup of the House of Representatives, with an overwhelming victory for Democratic House candidates. This view reflects the negative ratings held by a Republican led Administration, virtually in every significant category, related to political success, including the state of the economy, employment, inflation and especially lack of optimism being displayed by the vast number of Americans."
The issue is the midterms and the falling numbers of the Trump administration polls - let's discuss those popints.
Present your views and counterpoints without insulting others, be civil and debate the issue without denigating others.
And always follow the News Talkers rules and regulations
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
On April 16 poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted by RMG Research, a public opinion research firm founded by conservative pollster Scott Rasmussen, for Napolitan News Service found that if an election for Congress were held today, 48 percent would vote for the Democrat on their ballot, while 44 percent would vote for the Republican .
Not good news for the Trump administration
As long as all republicans in Congress support him, he won't give a crap.
unamerican cowards and sycophants ...
But Putin loves them....
A meaningless poll just a few months into his term is pointless. Too many variables and unknowns between now and then. But it almost always comes down to economic issues for the average citizen and family. For the Dems to make any significant gains they have to show the voters how their lives will improve if they elect Democrats. And that is not happening
Right now, the left seems to be devoting their efforts to being against Trump and the Republican agenda rather than standing for anything that's positive and good. Their negativity and inability to govern is what caused them to lose voters in every demographic, and they have refused to change their focus and have doubled down on supporting the wrong side of just about every issue. Right now it would be foolish to vote for Democrats considering their track record. The cartoon below says it all...
Trump continues to damage our nation in multiple dimensions and you pretend he is doing good. At this point that is a blatant denial of reality.
The big problem in the USA is not the Ds, but rather the stubbornly incompetent con-man abusing and discrediting the presidency.
All polls are meaningless if one doesn't understand what they signify, as you clearly demonstrate time and again.
Once again Trump has set the bar so low that Dems only need to demonstrate they aren't Trump to win enough seats to block his agenda. <- This is what the current polls are telling you.
And to think not that long ago, CNN showed that only 2 percent of Trump voters said they would have voted for Harris with the climate of politics today. That two percent were probably democrats who saw Harris for who she is and knew it would be another losing 4 years if she had been elected.
With that said, 98 percent of voters polled said they are happy with their vote.
I guess CNN is a far right wing source now.
trump creating international economic turmoil, ending our international aid programs, bullying our allies and non-allies alike, threatening his perceived enemies abroad, and will be attending the pope's funeral in rome. ... yeah, good luck with that.
WHAT??????
That might have worked in 2020, but the voters have wised up since then,
If we're going to be telling jokes, I've got one for you -
I heard there was a fire in the Trump Presidential Library. 20 books were burned - It's a shame that 15 weren't colored in yet.
People who do not like the results of polling are prone to label the polling as unreliable, meaningless, improperly taken et c etc
While similar polling that supports their position is lauded for its accuracy
That is rich coming from those that supported Brandon and the Democrats destroying this country for the last 4 years.
We have many months until then. Many things can happen.
Vic
Unfortunately I agree with you.
I think things will get worse and that more and more people will pull away from Trump and his "shock and awe" method of governing (I use that term loosely) and gravitate to the left.
This is a prefect time for the Dems to start building the plan for 2028
In the meantime, let us count our blessings: Inflation is down to 2%, the Market soared today on news that tariff deals are being worked out, the border has finally been closed, gang members are being apprehended, and Iran's nuclear ambitions are being addressed.
Vic
The market regaining 1000 after falling over 7000 is not a soaring market - it is a confused market
That confusion thanks to Mr Trump
There are few blessings to count at this point.
A confused market?
Does that mean the timid investors using borrowed money have run for cover?
No it means that savvy investors and long time financial institutions are unsure what the idiot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is going to do next - And surprise surprise - neither does he
As soon as the first trade deal is signed all that goes away.
What is taking so long?
Example: Japan recently complained that the Trump trade negotiators keep moving the goal posts. When Bessent was asked about it he hinted that Japan wanted to keep their trade barriers, you know the kind that prevent US companies from selling cars in Japan.
The good news is that the first signed deal will change everything.
Keep telling yourself that the chaos that is Trump will end with a single trade deal - that is hilarious
It will probably cause a chain reaction with other countries.....or maybe not. No one knows and speculating is stupid.
bugsy
...or maybe not.
The most correct and important point so far
Thanks for sharing
Oh, the chaos?
So, you'd rather go back to the US being ripped off because of the trouble it takes to fix it?
That is what certain countries are counting on.
The USA is not "ripped off" merely due to the presence of a trade imbalance. That is Trump bullshit and people should be aware enough of trade to understand that. There is no excuse for not using the web resources at one's disposal to learn about how global trade works.
A trade imbalance with a particular nation can be good or bad depending upon the circumstances. If the USA (both producers and consumers) benefit from importing less expensive parts and materials from nations whose labor costs and supply chain costs are substantially cheaper then that is advantageous. The USA has historically benefitted from this very situation. It allows producers to make sophisticated products with lower part costs and thus lower prices for the consumer. And as long as we are not strategically reliant upon this nation (with insufficient viable alternatives) that trade relationship helps us. It is good!
A bad trade situation is when we are dependent upon a nation for strategic materials or parts. This is bad because that nation can then hold us hostage. And this is true even if we have a trade surplus with a nation.
Now, outside of individual nations, an aggregate trade deficit is undesirable. We want to sell more than we buy in the world market (again, in total). But we cannot force the world market to comply. The way we achieve an aggregate trade surplus is by providing products that other nations want to buy. It is a market! We compete.
And per my opening point, when we can build our end products cheaper because of less expensive imported materials and parts, our end products can be offered at more competitive prices (both domestically and in the world market).
We do not win in global trade by having some asshole try to bully our trading partners. We win through positive strategic trading relationships.
There is no reason to believe that this chaotic approach to the mismanagement of governemnt processes and relations will fix anything .
Nothing is getting better, no one respects more, no one trusts us
So far it is bad, very bad and the light at the end of the tunnel might be more chaos thundering down the track
Let us take a minute to give the elected President the benefit of the case he has made for the past few decades.
He is trying to fix a chronic 50-year trade deficit problem that has harmed the US and its working class. Today more than ever it is destroying our middle class. We have an enormous federal deficit as well which has caused inflation and has eaten into the savings of the American people. Trump must stick to the idea of fair-trade deals, or he may scare off potential trade partners. I'm hoping there is no more talk of using trade deals to bring in income. He is up against a lot. It won't be easy, but it is worth the effort.
The first problem: The EU runs approximately a $200 billion trade surplus with the US, which explains how they can at the same time run a $300 billion trade deficit with China. It might even make sense for the EU to join forces with Trump to get a better trade position for themselves, but politically they can't. The EU is joined at the hip with the American left, so they are not going to cut a deal. They hope the financial markets will eventually force Trump to cave in. So, Trump is battling against time. He needs a good deal, not necessarily perfect to get the ball rolling. The American left wants him to fail because their eye is on the midterm election, so he faces pressure in the media as well as from the market.
That brings us to Asia. There we have half a dozen big trade players. That would be India, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, The Philippines and to a lesser extent Indonesia and Vietnam. China is in a separate box. They have been the main problem since the day they were allowed into the WTO and I hope I don't have to once again list the things they have done. Like the EU they are hoping that enough pressure will be brought upon Trump to force him to cave in. So, Trump needs one of the other Asian nations I mentioned to make that first deal and as he said: the one who makes the first deal will get the best deal. JD Vance seems to think India will be that first domino. I think South Korea & Taiwan have vested security interests with the US, so one of them may be first. I'm hoping Trump can pull it off. The clock is ticking.
I disagree. He is trying to undue 50 years of insane trade deals. They have become normalized. Obama told us that manufacturing jobs were never coming back. I'm hoping Trump pulls it off.
I saw in the paper today that Mazda shut down a production plant in the U.S. - that is jobs leaving the country not jobs coming back.
I understand that you support what Trump does - I respect your view, I just think it is not always well guided.
It is not possible to turn back to the 1970s where the USA was still dominant in labor-based manufacturing. It is beyond naive to believe that is possible.
True, and Trump will almost certainly make it worse.
Too late. Trump has already demonstrated to the world that he is not interested in fair trade deals but rather he seeks to bully trade partners. How could anyone not be aware of this?
Explaining how global trade work appears to be pointless given you continue to repeat Trump's bullshit. Trump believes (because he does not understand what is going on) that trade needs to be balanced with each nation to be fair. That is flat out wrong ... and I just explained this (yet again) @1.3.11 ... and you can easily verify what I explained to you. I did you a favor by summarizing it, but the details are available to everyone via the web.
Since you keep repeating the same crap, do some research and learn how trade works and why the existence of a trade deficit is neither good nor bad; that what matters are the specifics. The reasons why we have a deficit. Briefly, if we choose to buy more from a nation (like Vietnam) because we can get the same quality for a cheaper price then that is good for us. (Also for producers: much of our domestic products —which we also export— are kept at lower prices because we can import and gain lower costs in parts and materials.)
A trade deficit is bad if we want to manufacture the materials / parts / products ourselves. If so, then we would introduce a tariff to dissuade USA consumers from buying from Vietnam (the example) and encourage them to buy from domestic suppliers. It is especially bad if what we are buying is considered of strategic importance to the USA because that means that nation has serious leverage on us. Case in point, China's dominance on rare Earth elements.
The mere $ counts is the wrong metric. It is as stupid as assuming the value of a company is reflected in its current stock price. The real value of a company is reflected in its fundamentals. But fundamentals are much more complex than a simple number. Same with deficits, the number is easy ... one number ... but determining the value of the trade with a particular nation depends on the details. Not the mindlessly stupid comparison of total imports vs. exports.
So here is an example. If we had a trade surplus with China, but they controlled rare Earth elements that we strategically depend upon, then that trade surplus is BAD. This hypothetical surplus does not (in any way) make up for the strategic dependence on China.,
The EU would cut a deal regardless of ideology. Not everyone makes every fucking decision based on partisan / ideological blinders. The EU would even deal with Trump if he could find a way to engage them fairly.
Probably. But the rest of the world is tied with the US market and the US economy so that would be bittersweet at best. I think the world hopes that Trump loses public support quickly and backs off on all of this tariff nonsense.
The Ds and those who oppose Trump (should be everyone who can think rationally) want him to be hobbled. The midterms are the best shot so that means favor for electing Ds over Rs. I doubt that anyone wants a Bear market, a bad economy, higher prices, etc. And I doubt there are many who see hobbling Trump to be more important than the financial impact on their daily lives.
You seem to forget that Trump caused all of these problems. There would be no ticking clock if Trump has not stupidly attempted to bully the planet. He could have engaged select nations (where we do have a trade problem) privately. If he is a skilled negotiator (and he clearly is not ... he is con-man, liar, and a thief) then he could make his deal. And if his deal required threats, he could make them privately.
But what did Trump do? Before sitting down with anyone privately, he makes an arrogant, bombastic threat of tariffs with the feeble excuse of reducing Fentanyl traffic. He then publicly insults out trade partners (in particular, Canada, arguably our best, closest, historical trade partner) and then trolls the nation with this 51st state crap.
Now, after our global trade partners have, in aggregate, shown that they will not simply roll over for the grand buffoon, Trump is under pressure. The brain-dead tariffs and the horrible way in which he executed same (especially with his threats and caving) have destabilized a healthy stock market, dropped consumer confidence, damaged the trust that trade partners had in the good will of the USA, and have triggered events that will (the effects are months away now) lead to higher prices, lower earnings, and layoffs in the private sector.
What this moron should have done is encourage the good economy he inherited. He did the opposite. And his supporters just keep on trying to defend whatever stupid move he makes.
If people believed that trump would not be president. Please don't respond with the usual dnc people are dumb talking points.
Part of the problem is that too many people did not (for whatever reason) understand that the economy Trump inherited was very good. The GDP was good, our business fundamentals were good, inflation was back in normal territory, etc. The only bad part was that prices were still high due to the 8+% inflation and interest rates were too high. And the bellwether of the economy, the stock market, was quite strong with good fundamentals.
That is what people wanted from Trump: lower prices (not possible, but ...) and lower interest rates (not the pervue of the PotUS, but ...).
Yet again, you invent your own little reality. I am not nor have I ever been a D. I do not care what 'talking points' the DNC comes up with. My comments are based on my assessment of reality based on evidence and logic.
Here is the last paragraphically correct description of the actual accurate summation and depiction of non-fckn fiction hard reality that needed some plurality, as too many don't get it, and what are they waiting for, the shutting of a closed door, as the ever increasing amount, amount to less richer, more poor is the open storm door on the glass house that rocks reason, as screened from too many a reality is treason enough for me to call the call waiting room to keep busy waiting, in the call waiting waiting room for that one caller, keeping busy, a tempting to explain as day how at night, it's different, cause at this point not seeing what the mental unfit misfit, maniacal misleader and election denier and cheater, was let in by the 600 # Mosquitor on our backs, while being mostly up front about his back door stabbings and such, cause he is clutch, as he slips and stahls, then falls, faster than water can fall in the wind driven torrid Autum
cause Frm Can to Can't is whwre we were taken
[✘]
[✘]
Although this has been explained to you repeatedly, you still refuse to acknowledge the cold reality that labor-based manufacturing will never come back to the USA because US workers cannot survive on the low wages of foreign workers such as those in Vietnam.
The only US manufacturing that can grow is that based on advanced methods (e.g. Japanese auto manufacturing) and those based on state-of-the-art AI and robotics.
And for this to happen, billions of dollars must be invested and years (no less than three and closer to 10) will be spent building the facilities and suitable supply chains.
Trump has no concept of what is required; he does not know what he is doing. He is the last person you should trust. Learn about this from non-partisan sources.
Good Comment.
Everything I've read from credible economists leans the same way. Your explanation is clear. Their explanations are clear. And yet the Trump Administration persists with policies that no one understands. China is laughing.
A difficult task, as dragons are known for being serious creatures not prone to frivolity or laughter.
Caused first by Reagans fears of Russia, then Bush's War on Terror....
But the lies persist that Democratic "hand outs" like SSA, Medicaid and Medicare are the culprits.
It gets old.
Which not so clearly explains why you were never an expert in economics?
He just cost the world $10Trillion in wealth by fucking with the markets because of his Ceasar Syndrome;he is ruling by fiat & EO and being shot down left and right while slandering Americans left & right. Deporting citizens and noncitizens at will with no due process
There are some on the American right who can no longer see the trees in the forest?
Reagan forced Russia to face the great Communist contradiction.
It seems that people are indeed concerned about the mess being made of the economy right now
An April 13 poll found that for the first time since May 2021, the GOP was seen as less trustworthy than Democrats with the nation's finances.
According to a CNBC poll of 1,000 Americans, 43 percent approved of Trump's handling of the economy , while 55 percent disapproved—marking the first time a CNBC survey showed the president with a net negative on the economy.
As the y SHOULD BE!
and in my humble opine, should have thought about last November, as he made promises to ignorant voters who bought in to what he was OBVIOUSLY LYING ABOUT !
Yea, lower prices on day one, stop the Russia induced war in Ukraine in 24 hours, deport millions of illegal rapists' and murderers', and
kNOW NOTHING about Project 2025, as it is beig followed and implemented almost to the T, but hey, nothing to see
HEAR,
Peopl, via far 'right' media outlets and public broadcasters, have been duped, and it was all out there, but people were told and sold a bill of goods, that any exposure to anything but say FoX or NewsMax would contaminate their minds, ( Or , show a far more accurate version, of say the Truth), and they didn't seem to. (mind), till now as the actuality is beginning to settle in
better late than never, yet only if we get to have elections again
From the article
"It is my opinion, increasingly, in view of the extremely negative ratings experienced by a Republican led Administration, it does appear that, barring some highly unlikely unforeseen circumstances, the midterm elections will bring about a major shift in the makeup of the House of Representatives, with an overwhelming victory for Democratic House candidates. This view reflects the negative ratings held by a Republican led Administration, virtually in every significant category, related to political success, including the state of the economy, employment, inflation and especially lack of optimism being displayed by the vast number of Americans."
It's called a midterm. A plus 4 or 5 democratic preference would be a pretty good outcome for Republicans. Democrats were plus 9 in 2018.
Sean
Your point is well taken
But I think the swing is going to be a much bigger Dem advantage plus 4 or 5 or even plus 9
The Dems will take back the House forcefully
... and the senate.
maybe - I am not yet sure of that one
The House though will be retaken by the Dems
feel free to underestimate the effects on the republican party that the wrecking ball in the white house will have ...
Just not sure that there ae enough "flippable" seats up in 2026
Prices haven't come down, gas is still pricey tho it has come down some, eggs still an arm and a leg and your firstborn at Kroger, retirement accounts are taking massive direct hits and he still hasn't made that phone call to stop the war in Ukraine.
I want the Republicans in congress to reign him in but they are sitting on their hands. Lisa Murkowski admitted the other day they're all scared of tremp and worried about their election chances in the midterms. They should be worried
only trumpski can fix the american economy that the leftist biden wrecked ...
I'll join you
Yeaaaaaa. The Lincoln Project.
Hard core conservative group s/
the last of the sane republicans ...
This all assumes that mid-terms will be held. Trump has told us we will never have to vote again. While he doesn't keep promises to help people, he does keep promises to destroy institutions.
So....
Many people likely share your apprehension, but I am confident that the union will survive until the midterms and the beginning of a power shift will begin (as it has many time sin the past)
Bob, that would put us in a full on bloody civil war. Until I see major looting and burning during protests in my news feed I'll continue to say the mid-terms are still more likely than not.
There was no civil war in 1930s Germany.
I fear that there are enough MAGA True Believers - we have quite a few excellent examples here on NT - to ensure the success of fascism in America.
We progressives cannot really get our heads around MAGA. We value facts and logic, and we cannot understand - literally cannot understand - people for whom those things are entirely pointless in their drive for power. Power is everything for them, and that is simply outside our comprehension. They will stop at nothing - nothing - in their quest for power. Law? Who gives a fuck? Truth? Don't make me laugh!
Insidiously, we accept the fascists. They are allowed - welcomed - in places like NT, where they gradually drive their lies into everyone's minds.
Oh, and... all the militias are fascist. Almost all law enforcement is fascist. So is there is civil war, it'll be over quickly...
We are not 1930's Germany.
When the rubber meets the road the numbers really aren't that many. 15 to 17 percent at best.
Bob, I've know a lot of people who claim to be progressive who turned out to be left wing populists that wouldn't know logic if it bit them on the ass and want to use the exact same tactics as we now see the right wing populists use.
See this right here is my point. They most definitely are NOT welcomed in places, but we can't kick them out for voicing their opinions. They are certainly noisy. It sounds like you want to ignore their rights to speak and associate? How does that make you better than them? Either rights and rules apply to everyone, or they apply to no one.
Yes, the militias are more likely to be fascist, but we have ample evidence most of those dumb fucks are more a danger themselves - I can link you to several Darwin Award winners if you like.
No, most law enforcement is NOT fascist. We only hear of the bad ones because it makes news and YouTube clicks. I personally know, and have known, many law enforcement officers. They are just like the rest of us trying to do a difficult job to the best of their abilities. They love their community and follow the rules.
I've also spent 10 years in the military. They are not monolithic either. Sure jobs like law enforcement and the military often attract assholes and idiots, but they are very much NOT looking to shoot their neighbors because an authoritarian talking head suggests it's a good thing.
EDIT: One last thing - there were tens of thousands of protests in the last week alone - in every state in the union. If that doesn't bring you some measure of hope this country isn't going to just lay down and take it then I can't help you.
Canaries aren't coalminers, either.
"All generalities are false, including this one." Would you accept "most progressives" and "most MAGAs"? Taking your words very far enters into bothsides territory.
If their lies are allowed, it looks like "welcome" to me. There is no reason why lies and misinformation cannot be deleted. Social media sites, including NT, are private property. If the owner wants to ban lies and disinformation, they can. If they do not, they are objectively giving a rostrum to the liars - welcoming them.
Neither of us have any evidence. Here's my perhaps simplistic analysis: LEOs kill hundreds every year. Most are criminals. Then there are unjustified killings... almost exclusively non-Whites, poor. Those are the populations fascists oppress with violence. Killer cops aren't necessarily fascists. Not necessarily. But........
... and they don't arrest fellow officers who commit unjustified killings... Breonna Taylor.......
I didn't mention the military. I don't know what to think, here. The military has been very important in the desegregation of America. At the same time, there is racism in the military. And the tradition of non-intervention in civilian affairs is very strong. I don't know what to think. My own service was over fifty years ago, so I mistrust it.
Ive seen your reality and take your version of possible events over that of Bobs. There are far more upset with Trump than ever talk about it, and t's growing daily.
good point
I do believe that Perrie is trying to run a site that allows all voices. That includes the far left and the far right. If she starts banning the voices you don't like this site will die
There is no problem with management. If there is censorship it will come via members who have attained the power.
There is no "far left" in America. (I know this because I live half the time in Europe, where there is a genuine "far left". They call for nationalization of private property, for example. When have you heard that in America?) OTOH, there are members here on NT who defend the murder of Heather Heyer - that is genuine "far right"!
"Bothsidesism" is stupid . There is no mirror image of the Klu Klux Klan. White churches do not get fire-bombed.
A lie is a lie. A lie corrected over and over and yet repeated over and over... does not deserve to be "protected speech". It is pure propaganda, so a site that protects it is de facto a propaganda site.
It's not a question of like or dislike. It's a question of true or false, of constructive or destructive.
It was deleted because a lynching is "distasteful".
I do not understand how outright lies about subjects as serious as 6Jan can be considered "tasteful" and acceptable.
What do you consider AOC and Bernie Sanders. Most Americans would consider them the farthest of the left....or socialist.
Actually yes. You can see it in everyone who calls for a wealth tax, ie a tax on held assets.
Stating that there is no 'far left' in American politics is a rather myopic view.
Have to agree with you. And when people start clamoring for a minimum income paid to all people? Wha? I think able-bodied people should work for their income.
You cannot shut down speech, Bob! No matter how distasteful or inaccurate it is. Your job is to counter their speech with facts, not shut them down
Well said!
That's true... and it shows how badly skewed the political spectrum is in this country. AOC and Sanders are "Social Democrats". In Europe, they'd be "moderate left". European parliaments often do not have majorities, so they create coalitions. Social Democrats often participate in them. They alternated in power with the Conservatives for decades in Germany - sometimes including coalitions that had both those parties in them.
Another way to look at it would ne to examine the social and economic programs proposed by each party. For example, Socialists are further left than Social Democrats, in that they call for community (township, labor union, state, whatever) ownership of means of production and distribution. Social Democrats do not - they want redistribution of wealth through taxation to pay for health, education, etc.
So we have "left" in the US, but not "far left".
Taxation is not the same as nationalization. Look them up.
Or maybe, not seeing what exists elsewhere in the world is "myopic"...
Don't really care what is done in Europe. I live in the US.
If you ask ANY American, they will tell you those two are socialist, ie, far left.
If you want to talk about moderate left, you would have to talk about someone like Durbin. Not many on the left these days that are center left.
And you call others "myopic"... That's hilarious.
I think some European countries have some lessons for us on this side of the pond.
Taxation is a tax on income, nationalization is the assumption of control or ownership of private property by the state. A million dollars held in stocks and bonds would be private property, any "wealth tax" on that would fall under the guise of nationalization as it transfers "ownership" of a part of that private property to the state.
You are the one who stated there is no 'Far Left' in America. Go back to your post of 6.2.8 if you need to refresh your memory as you stated it. Trying to shift the goalposts isn't a good defense. While it can be true that there can exist those who are farther left than one can find in America, you started the conversation by stating that there is no far left in America and that just isn't true. Looking at any dictionary, it will state that 'far left' as belonging to or representing the views of the extreme left wing of a political party or group. It doesn't say to compare America to France.
France has it's own history and it's own issues It is illogical to hold up any single country and state this is the standard to define what is far left vs far right.
Not just Europe. Japan went from military dictatorship to democracy - imposed by us - and made it work. Canada. South Africa is still a work in progress... but they started s-o-o-o far down. Israel is perhaps a cautionary tale.
There are lessons to be learned everywhere.
If you change the definition of words, you can truthfully say black and white are the same. If you change the definition of words, you can truthfully say that taxation and nationalization are the same.
Why France? I didn't mention France...
What definitions did I change? Spell it out rather than vague accusations.
Taxation in this country is a tax on income. I also gave the definition of nationalization up there, which is the assumption of control or ownership of private property by the state. ie the government takes ownership of your factory. I also explained that $1 million held in stock and bonds is also private property and if the government initiates a wealth tax and takes 10% of your $1 million dollars, that fulfills the definition of nationalization as the government is taking control and ownership of part of your private property. Nowhere in the definition does it state that the physical property of said private property cannot change.
You said Europe and elsewhere you have mentioned that you live part-time in France. But pick any country in Europe that the underlying point remains.
I would disagree. They don't have a lot of power yet, but they are organizing off their hated of the far right. AOC, as you well know is a democrat socialist and, is being positioned to run in 2028 by supporters. Whether she actually runs or not remains to be seen, but she is quite popular with the Progressives moving further to the left.
You are conflating private property with personal property.
Private property refers to means of production and distribution owned by individuals or organizations in the private sector.
Your example of a million dollars held in stocks and bonds is known as personal property (not private property).
Which is meaningless to my comment.
Get a dictionary.
From Gemini:
AOC is a "social democrat", not a socialist. (Social democracy is a perfectly honorable position on the political spectrum. Some of my best friends are social democrats.
But personally, I prefer full-bore socialism.)
So you don't have a reply, which tells me you really don't understand what the conversation was.
Show where I did that.
It means that a wealth tax is not nationalization.
I apologize I swapped the words around (an honest mistake).
There are only a few here that can't seem to grasp the difference.
I never claimed it wasn't honorable, then again I didn't claim it was anything other that was on the farther left end of the US political spectrum.
My point is we have a spectrum that contains left and right ends. You could defend their positions if you feel you must (I like some things, but not all things) - Like maybe list the reasons why the far left isn't as bad as the far right, but you can't truthfully say there isn't a far left in the US.
.
Thing is, the way some (like Bernie Sanders) define Democratic Socialism, it is essentially Social Democracy. Bernie labels himself a Democratic Socialist but his policies (as stated) were pure social democracy with the Nordic nations as the exemplar.
So, you might have been correct conceptually anyway.
As for far left and far right, every nation will have its extremes. The differences among the nations are the percentages. Some nations will have more 'far ...' than the USA. And, of course, the concept of left, right, far, centrist, etc. vary per nation and culture. I suspect it is that aspect that Bob references.
Yes, which is why I get confused.
Of course. That's kinda the definition of a "spectrum". But it's like light has a spectrum... that goes further red or blue for different animals.
America's political spectrum is different from other advanced countries. It's truncated. It goes as far right as any country's, but the left side (compared to most countries) is missing everything beyond "social democrat".
Which makes one wonder what is going on in the minds of those who continually refer to everything left of center (or left of their own views) in the USA as the 'far left'.
Yes. It's all about people redefining words and ideas to fit their narrative. There is too much of that going on here.
I agree our far left isn't what our far right claims. When one starts referring to mainstream dems as liberal marxist communists they've already built their argument's foundation on quicksand. I just don't want my friends further to the left (of me) making similar logic mistakes.
As someone who reads this site, that's the problem you notice? Really? Misuse of far left???? Lol.
Sorry to come back to this one. And tangentially for our conversation. I'm just reminded of how I heard one person describe the differences between Senators Sanders and Warren: Warren wants to fix things within the government framework we already have whereas Sanders wants a whole new system of government.
"Nothing" is most likely.
Exactly
What now are you talking about? Where do I suggest that is the sole 'problem' and further where do I label this a 'problem'?
Post something serious rather than pointless obnoxious comments like @6.2.38
Sanders is definitely on what I would consider far left in the USA. Not the fringe, but he seems to be 'far left' to me. I am not aware of anything that Sanders proposed that would qualify as a whole new system of government. Sanders is not seeking radical changes to our constitution, nor does he propose changing our economic system away from capitalism. Pretty much everything he has proposed (based on memory now) struck me as social democracy. That is definitely a change to our system but certainly not a whole new system. Arguably, the USA is currently a weak social democracy.
[deleted][✘]
Sanders has says he wants the US to be more like the European Nordic countries with free healthcare, free education and a more robust social safety net. These would require changes to the way government functions now. There may be ways to the get there from here, but without doing a lot more research (that imo wouldn't be worth the time) I'm not sure what they would be.
You're probably correct. I'm not giving my opinion on the merits of those ideas, just not certain how one uses our current framework of rules to get there without changing the rules.
Yes, Sanders definitely wants to change government functions. But to me his changes are not a new system of government but rather they pump up the volume on social programs. Currently we have social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and myriad smaller programs (e.g. ACA, tuition grants) where the government distributes 'tax' dollars to for public social causes. Sanders, one example, wants to extend Medicare to everyone ... "Medicare for all". This would require lots of changes (and, arguably, it is not feasible) but I do not consider that a new system of government.
I fully agree with your assessment that these would be big changes.
More importantly, it would require taxed paid by the wealthy.
We can only hope that is true. Trump fooled them twice, I didn't think they would fall for it this time around.
The dwindling rallies he held leading up to the election indicated he had definitely lost a lot of support.
Yet the media blitz of anti-trans panic in super bowl ads cranked up the rage machine to flip it. He still did not win by a large margin.
The damage to America, the Veterans Administration, loss of jobs of honest American hard working civil servants in the thousands that include so many veterans, stock market crash equal to great Depression, up and down trade wars for no reason, dismantling Health and Human Services who keep Americans and our children healthier and safer, none of this was a "campaign promise".
We are not safer, not greater, not wealthier, and not happier. Republican voters that are realizing all this cannot take back their vote. However they can start to call their Republican representatives and voice their regrets to turn this around.
We are not safer, not greater, not wealthier, and not happier.
Excellent point - the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in that statement!
In Florida the GOP is in deep disarray, The ruling family wanted to be the next POTUS and the next Governor of Florida.
The voters and national exposure killed Ron Disantis' hopes for the first. Scandal and GOP investigations look likely to keep Mrs. Disantis from running for the Governorship. She may be lucky to escape charges for the reported financial mishandling of $10 Million Medicare dollars redirected to her project Hope; which then made two $5million dollar donations to anti marijuana PACs fighting attempts to legalize the weed by legislation, popular vote or changing the State Constitution.
Can't make this stuff up.
I can't stand those anti-weed PACs. They tried that here in Arkansas but the voters said they wanted it legalized for medical use. And some day (when the old white guys in Little Rock wake up) they will realize the cash that green weed brings in and make it fully legal