Posters who are rooting for Trump's approval ratings to rise...why?

[Banana Republican]

Every day when I look at the approval thread and a lot of other posts on here, I notice that some posters seem to be pining for Trump's approval ratings to go up.

My question is, what exactly would be so appealing about a rise in Trump's numbers? His approvals rising by any significant amount (i.e. more than a rise of a few points) would likely only be possible with a horrendous 9/11 style mass destruction terrorist attack or Pearl Harbor type attack by a foreign government causing a rally-around-the-flag effect. Attacks against America such as Pearl Harbor in 1941 and 9/11 in 2001 were pretty terrible times to live through as an American citizen, and I'd think most people are old enough to at least remember the latter.

It just seems more and more to me that Trump supporters are rooting for misery, failure, and mass scale death of their fellow citizens in America simply because they like Trump that much. That doesn't make you much of a citizen if you ask me.

Trump supporters, why do you hate America and want your fellow citizens to die?

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

It's no need to view his rising approval numbers, its the right track wrong track number and its doubtful, it will get over 50% in 2018 or in 2020 as long as the Mueller probe is ongoing.

[The DEI Hire]

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

lol

[twenty42]

Democrats in 2009--"Rush Limbaugh is a traitor for hoping Obama fails!!"

Democrats in 2017-2018--"I hope Trump fails!!"

[Yellowhammer]

Democrats in 2009--"Rush Limbaugh is a traitor for hoping Obama fails!!"

Democrats in 2017-2018--"I hope Trump fails!!"

[The DEI Hire]

"This cannot be stressed enough."

[twenty42]

"This cannot be stressed enough."

This is freaking beautiful...

[twenty42]

Democrats in 2009--"Rush Limbaugh is a traitor for hoping Obama fails!!"

Democrats in 2017-2018--"I hope Trump fails!!"

Even twenty42 admits Republicans started this tradition of wanting presidents to fail.

The first amendment gives everybody has the right to root for whatever they want. It still doesn't make it any more logical that libs are embracing the very sentiment that they called treasonous nine years ago.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

I’m very curious what the posters talking about the vile, unhinged left were doing in 2009 and 2010... or really any year of Obama’s presidency, including 2016. Consistency is just so lost on some people.

[Doomer]

I don't mind his poll numbers rising, but I want them to be rising for the right reasons.

I want Trump to do well because he's the president, and I'm an American.  Everyone should want him to succeed.  My hope is that he'll begin governing as an American and not something unrecognizable and/or horrid to our form of government.  Do I think he can do that?  No, of course not; if you keep digging a hole, eventually you can't climb out of it.  But I've always hoped he'd do well, ever since his election--I even posted that once or twice around here going as far back as his election.

[Pericles]

This thread is clearly a parody against twenty42's thread.

[The DEI Hire]

I guess "when they go low, we go high" wasn't inspiring enough for some Atlas dems.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

I guess "when they go low, we go high" wasn't inspiring enough for some Atlas dems.

I mean, that shouldn’t be surprising, given what happened in 2016.

[Mr. Smith]

Well, some of them actually stand to benefit from his actions or hope for such things.

Others are sententious ones that simply want the incumbent to succeed simply because he is the incumbent, despite the grifting and self-serving nature of his actions.

[Banana Republican]

This thread is clearly a parody against twenty42's thread.

Yes. I would hope that is obvious.

For the record, I disagree very much with the argument I made in the OP. I disagree with it for precisely the same reasons that I disagree with the argument made by twenty42.

Anyone who disagrees with either argument ought to disagree with the other one.

[twenty42]

This thread is clearly a parody against twenty42's thread.

Yes. I would hope that is obvious.

For the record, I disagree very much with the argument I made in the OP. I disagree with it for precisely the same reasons that I disagree with the argument made by twenty42.

Anyone who disagrees with either argument ought to disagree with the other one.

The difference is that a president's approval rating can rise without a catastrophic event, but their approval will only likely fall in the event of bad news for America.

[Banana Republican]

The difference is that a president's approval rating can rise without a catastrophic event, but their approval will only likely fall in the event of bad news for America.

This is disingenuous.

Basically, your argument amounts to the old tired sophistry that any criticism of x (in particular where x = the President) is unpatriotic. Such an argument is fallacious, insulting, offensive, and runs counter to the ideals we ought to hold true in a free and open democratic society.

And yes, while I suspect that using this sort of argument is/was less prevalent by Democrats under Obama than it was/is among Republicans under Trump and Bush, this is also the case when some Democrats/liberals made the same argument about Obama (I certainly never made any such argument).

You should be able to distinguish between disagreeing with or disapproving of a person, the way that person conducts themselves, and that person's policies and wanting bad things to happen to America.

[Mr. Smith]

This thread is clearly a parody against twenty42's thread.

Yes. I would hope that is obvious.

For the record, I disagree very much with the argument I made in the OP. I disagree with it for precisely the same reasons that I disagree with the argument made by twenty42.

Anyone who disagrees with either argument ought to disagree with the other one.

The difference is that a president's approval rating can rise without a catastrophic event, but their approval will only likely fall in the event of bad news for America.

That or another, actually charismatic opponent eventually manages a counter-narrative that stirs up the base and flips a few indies, which artificially lowers approvals for a time.

And if there's a challenger who isn't that charismatic, then the incumbent base will ensure a means to sink that challenger and artificially raise the president's approvals as happened with Bush in '04 and Obama in '12.

And all this seems increasingly more and more divorced from catastrophic events or downturns. Or at least divorced from one-size-fits-all catastrophic events and downturns.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

I don't care what any politician's approval ratings are.

Approval ratings aren't an accomplishment.  Besides, solving the problems of our current society will likely require unpopular measures.