• Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    16 hours ago

    But like, a majority decided it would be a good idea to let him have a go at breaking that record. You thought, maybe he’d be a good choice once, rapidly discovered that was not the case and then decided to try AGAIN!?

  • Astrophage@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    1 day ago

    And yet he has no less power… In fact I bet he has more than any other on the list thanks to the supreme court.

    • then_three_more@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      1 day ago

      Your system is so fucked. It took the Tories less time than it takes for a lettuce to go bad to oust the mad woman in the attic when she fucked our economy.

      • Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 hours ago

        It wouldn’t have been as easy if the Tories were in on it. The system isn’t great, but it’s only fucked because everyone involved in it is a fucking demon.

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 day ago

      In general the president has been gaining power over the past 50 years as congress has become more gridlocked and inept.

      Now we’re at the point where a president can bomb a foreign country backed only by the approval of his buddies in a signal chat.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Read an eye-opening article many years ago concerning the last 50 years of Congress giving more and more power to the Executive. It was hard journalism, well sourced and non-partisan, just the facts with dates and events. It was an opinion piece, not straight news, but that was the thrust. And yes, nearly every, if not every Congress has ceded more and more power to the President. So wish I could read that again and post it for y’all to see.

        The framers of the Constitution had a clear focus on checking the Executive. They lived in a time of kings, unlimited monarchy, and wanted anything but a new system to setup a new form of tyrant. How they spin in their graves watching the very counter balance they envisioned willingly give up.

        This won’t be a welcome comment around here, but I’m hoping for the Supreme Court to dial in the madness. Remember, they are conservative, not partisan, and they owe Trump jack shit. Also, they have ruled against the man and his wishes many times so far. Most would be surprised at the “liberal” decisions they’ve made, and the “conservative” cases they’ve refused to hear. (If someone can tell me how to export my SCOTUS folder from Firefox, in a format that’s easy to pass on, I can provide dozens of examples.)

        They are at the very pinnacle of the legal profession and are keen to leave a positive legacy in the law books. OTOH, there are two assholes on the bench so goddamned corrupt it’s appalling. Need I name names? I would gladly trade a conservative whose views I detest against either of those animals.

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Every other president had an increase. Every single one. Not even breaking a record, creating a new one by failing twice.

  • Fingolfinz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    What would have been really nice is if people got off their fucking asses and voted so we wouldn’t be dealing with this fucking shit show that magats wanted to subject us all to

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Nah, glad they stayed home. My American ass is watching this train wreck with great glee. No amount of suffering will assuage my anger after 01/06. I want to see this goddamned country on it’s fucking knees, begging and crying and damning Republicans for the next seven generations (very Biblical of me!). Nothing short of the annihilation of the GOP and conservative “values” will do.

      I want zero chance of this cancer coming back in my children’s lifetime. One little murdered CEO will not do. I want Depression era suffering on this entire country. I want a Gotham style reckoning with kangaroo courts, dragging the rich from their bunkers. A pox on both your houses! Burn it all to the ground. (Which, BTW, is how we start a new and fertile field.)

      And I will not forgive or forget the MAGA signs. They’ve advertised who they are and what they want. When it’s over we will carve MAGA into their fucking foreheads, much like God did Cain (getting very Biblical tonight, ain’t I?).

  • neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    What’s up with Truman, Kennedy and all those high numbers?

    Even if we assume Truman achieved 100% approval in the first 100 days, that’d mean his initial approval was 16%.

    I am going to be a bit skeptical of this.

    Mainly because I know that Kennedy was elected and not grandfathered in like truman and there’s no way he was only elected with only 28%

    • notabot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      Net approval at a point in time is the percentage of voters who approve minus the percentage of voters who disapprove, it’s not a delta from an earlier reading.

      For net approval to be negative, more people must disapprove then approve.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think this is initial approval minus approval 100 days in, I think it’s approval 100 days in minus disapproval 100 days in.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Is it possible that it’s % of variation compared to what it was on day 1? So if approval was 50% and on day 100 it’s 60% that’s +20 (20% of 50 = 10, 50 + 10 = 60)?

  • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Interesting that it is a very clear downward trend. Hopefully this is a sign that more and more people realize the two parties are failing them and are ready for a shake up.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      I was actually about to make a comment that I think this is related to biased media, the 24/7 news cycle, and the need for outrage to get eyeballs for ad revenue.

      In the past I think people had their amygdalas left alone for the most part, at least for anything that wasn’t “be afraid of communism!!”

  • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Truman +84 yeah sure ok. EDIT: sorry I misunderstood. I thought it was the delta after 100 days vs initial.

    • bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I can’t imagine anything significant that happened during Truman’s first few months that would make his approval rating go up /s

      • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        I know it would jump but how was it that low to begin with? That’s, like, insanely low it must have been below 10% Edit: sorry I misunderstood the chart

      • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Yeah but that would imply his approval was like 10 beforehand…no way was it that low Edit: sorry I misunderstood the chart