Is Trump showing worrying signs of mental disorder?

Perhaps it is to do with not being poor enough as Ginny suggests.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English in all 50 states.

I wonder if they would get a different result using a telephone poll as many older people still do not use internet. This came up during campaign polls as well.

Possibly there are a few (or more?) on GN who simply don't want to stand up and say 'I support Trump' for whatever reason.

Perhaps they're afraid if being called racist, xenophobic, anti-Islam, facist.....who knows?

Not sure if I'd rather hear their views or respect them for keeping schtum.

Well, seeing that anyone who expresses a less than left wing opinion on GN is labelled as being on the 'hard right' I don't blame anyone who supports Trump or his policies for keeping well and truly out of it!

Yes, Anya, I'm sure they would be called all your suggestions and probably more (not to mention 'divisive'!)

Oh, 'divisive' would be the least of it I should think but it would be interesting to hear other views ( if it can all be handled in a civil way)
#whydoidoubtthat

Does it make any difference where the countries are. Is discrimination/racism ever acceptable? If so, in which circumstances?

Ankers said:

I am beginning to think that us on this forum are hugely out of step with american voters.

But we are not out of step with more US voters than we are out of step with. Clinton got more actual votes than did Trump.

Put it another way, we are in agreement with more US voters than we disagree with..

Any country ( and there are quite a few) who does not permit Israeli citizens to come in to it are as bad Maddy but you don't get any protests about it do you.....when there certainly should be.

But how many grasnetters are openly saying that they would have voted Trump if they lived in the USA?
That is what I mean by hugely out of step.

Totally agree Roses, in my opinion there should be no discrimination/racism (except in the case of terrorists/serious criminals who might be a threat to the population of the country) but I don't care for duel standards.

Yes Maddie, it does make a difference because it helps to understand the reasons before criticising or applauding.

Yes. Nuff said.

So, basically, maddyone you seem to be asking for complete freedom for anyone in the world to go anywhere in the world that they choose to? No country has any right at all to stop anyone entering?

Apart from terrorists and serious criminals. Is this is *after8 theyve been convicted (because I'm not quite sure how you would udentify them before that)?

Just read Anya's post about why people aren't supporting him here ... I don't know about us Grans here, but my neighbour does support what he has done and plans to do. She makes rational points about what he has done and I can see there is certainly a case to be made in support of his policies. I think, however that there are justifiable concerns about his methods, his demeanour and his attitude, which is borderline dictator, in my opinion.
In common with most of the rest of you, I don't like what he has done, but that is the Republican way, which Americans voted for. Maybe they didn't think they would be voting for one man to do his will, in his way, regardless of anyone else's feelings, including, apparently, those in his own party. That's not government, that's a dictatorship or in grave danger of becoming one.

I'm not asking for anything, just thinking about the duel standards that appear to apply according to who people are and where they come from.

Having seen some of the filming of desperately poor people in America, I think I would have voted for him, after all, it couldn't get much worse. And yes, I do know that many of you are going to jump in and say: well actually, it can, but those people don't think it can so they're pinning their hopes on someone else.
It might go tits, but in their world they've nothing to loose.
If some of you still don't understand, you know nothing about povity.

Poverty.

Unfortunately Maddy double standards do apply if people care little about the rights of the citizens from one country ( Israel) but protest about the rights of citizens from other countries.

Retrolady I am wondering what has happened to the 'checks and balances' written into their Constitution which we were told would prevent him from acting unilaterally.

I'm not American MaizieD and have only been there once but, looking at the campaigning from a British point of view, I'm not sure that I could have voted for either Trump or Clinton.

Trump is just as everyone expected him to be - running it like a business and throwing out one order after another. Perhaps people thought he could get America out of the stagnation that is apparent in many areas away from Washington.
Clinton was out of touch with the people some posters have mentioned above, the disaffected, disillusioned, forgotten and she shot herself in the foot by disparaging them. A friend from Australia described her as evil and terrifying.

The really terrible thought about all this is - are they the best America can produce?

I'm also interested in those Jalima. I'm pretty vague about how the American Constitution works, but I understood there were checks and balances too.

I've been following the attempt by the Democrats to block Neil Gorsuch for the vacant position on the Supreme Court. I don't know whether they're going to be able to hang on.

I hope there isn't a second American Civil War, because it seems more than anything that this has revealed the fault lines in a very unequal country. I don't think it is just about poverty, but social/religious values too.

Thanks Elegran

I looked up Executive orders before posting about them a couple of times on gransnet[though I more or less only looked a wiki, and a couple of other sites]

As far as I can work out[and I might be hugely wrong] he can do those executive orders, as all other Presidents have done before him.

Do Executive orders get around the checks and balances? Yes???

I have been surprised that people have not talked about them on here as far as I have seen, and still seem to think there isnt much of a problem with them because "checks and balances" will sort things out.
But I think, and I will say again that I could be very wrong, that that is not the case???

Yorkshiregel Those incidents could have been catalysts to further action (some were), which is why we have diplomats and Foreign Offices to try and calm things down.

The point is that catalysts happen in a context of distrust and hatred. Incidents between two powers with friendly relations are usually treated as minor incidents, people apologise and life moves on.

At the moment, it seems that we have some major forces at work (Putin, IS, 'anti-elite', nationalism, etc) heading for collision courses. Sorry, but I really don't trust the 'people' to sort things out. If you studied the Reign of Terror after the Revolution at school or even witnessed a playground brawl before intervention, you'll know what I mean.

Sorry! Wrong thread, although my last post would actually be more appropriate here than one about Article 50.