Do you think that U.S. President Donald Trump can unify his country, in view of the massive protests against him and his disputes with mainstream media?

No...

The US guys at the office have been talking about when the US would split apart for several years. The consensus has been moved up to about 6 years from now, maybe 2 years.

Aaah yes, Donald Trump the great healer, the unifier...right....He is a significant part of the division...He saw a crack and he exploited it for all it was worth while helping to make it bigger at the same time. Disunity was the platform he ran on.

a very big NO!

The question assumes that the country WANTS to be united. It doesn't and that's fine.

his disputes with mainstream media?

JapanToday: STOP normalizing Trump's propaganda. There is no such thing as "mainstream media". It is a term invented by the alt-right to explain away why the things they want to be true aren't reported in reality. "The media" does not exist as a collective - it is millions of independent organizations.

As part of the media yourselves, you should not be legitimizing propaganda that says you are in collusion with sinister forces any time you report facts the regime disapproves of.

Moderator: There is no such thing as "alt-right." It's an important question to ask readers.

Obama didnt and couldnt.

@katsu,

You at it again?

Trump seeks to unify people under (deliberate preposition) an agenda, team and values that are anathema to the vast majority. Can he succeed?

Ask the millions who took part in an unprecedented (did I spell that right, KellyAnne?) 673 marches from Antarctica (!) to Zimbabwe at the weekend.

https://www.womensmarch.com/sisters

Can he succeed?

He has succeeded remarkably thus far.

He has succeeded remarkably thus far.

The millions of women who protested him yesterday would prove your theory wrong.

The guy has deliberately divided his own country himself, almost as if like some traitor working for a foreign government. He has no chance of healing his country he has done so well in ruining

No way. Before being in office? Least popular person to be sworn in. Swearing in? biggest protests in history for such an event, much, MUCH smaller number of attendants at ceremony. The man had to flat out lie about the "One million, maybe even one million five hundred thousand..." his discerning eye could easily count, despite the cameras telling a different story (the truth). His press secretary screams about it, denying the facts, and runs off stage refusing questions.

The fact is Trump won BECAUSE of the lack of unity, and that's all. He's not about to change that -- he's going to separate the country. Maybe it finally needs that. Democracy sure isn't working for it.

I say yes. The solution will be another war. Americans are warriors, and unite when there is a huge war. It is excellent for the economy too.

Now with the US Federal budget behind him, expect even more unleashed sycophants flooding before us online.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov

This has now become true for all the world to see and nothing will stop it, unless protests occur every single week. Such that online comments are irrelevant to the reality of the streets.

Dunno (doubt it) but we can all agree this would be one of the greatest turnarounds in US political history!

Trump, BLM folks, feminists, Hillary and Bill etc all attending a 'we did it" (or 'we done it') FREE mega concert with Beyoncé, Cher, Streep, de Niro, Cyrus, a few rappers (for good measure) etc. Wow!!

For now, before even thinking about unifying the country, reckon DT should first think about not dividing it further. Problem is, neither side wants to reach out and find some common ground/goals. Only a miracle (a double digit growth, criminality and unemployment at an all-time low etc) could make this happen.

The millions of women who protested him yesterday would prove your theory wrong.

Sorry to inform you that in this election, more than any other, the female vote decided the outcome. And the female vote went to Trump.

Am I wrong?

Women did not come out for Hillary, they came out for Trump, and not even you can deny this.

Yesterday's protest was not spontaneous uprising of concerned women, but the usual organized protest financed and directed by the usual culprits. Of the numerous organizations which brought out the protestors, 56 are funded by none other than our Hungarian friend, George Soros. How much did Trump's victory cost Soros? Something like a billion dollars, right? Our friend in Hungary is not interested in those he finances, or their causes, insomuch as he can profit from them. He had bet his money on a Hillary victory, and spread a fair amount of it about beforehand to help secure that victory.

Trump was elected despite the fact that both parties opposed him. He was elected despite the fact that he raised only one-third as much as Hillary did, and spent 50 times less on political advertising. He was elected despite the media and their pollsters using every false report and fake poll to defeat him. There has never in the history of America been a more organized effort in Washington to prevent a man from being elected than what was saw last year. And this effort was still defeated, and that man still won.

Yes, I stand behind what I said, he has succeeded remarkably thus far. And even if you hate him to the marrow of your bones, if you think he hasn't, you are lying to yourself. Trump arguably pulled off the most remarkable success ever seen in American politics, considering all that was arrayed against him. I doubt if such a feat will ever be equalled.

Your claim was that he's already unified the country. Sure a lot of women voted for trump, but the protests yesterday show that he hasn't unified the country.

The speeches at the march were cringe-worthy. How many vulgar profanities did Madonna use in her speech? Not the best way to set an example on how to fight vulgar language and the like....

In fairness, he does seem to be uniting the country against him. Not sure if that counts.

He will never be allowed the chance to unify the country. The protestors dont even know what they are protesting about, just want to protest SOMEthing cause they are hurt in the feels.

Yeah, right.

He will never be allowed the chance to unify the country.

Hmm, where have we heard about people obstructing the president in any way they could, refusing to work with the party who has the presidency, in fact, going so far as to shut down the entire government in opposition... where did we hear that before?

Oh yeah, for the past eight entire years.

Does that bed feel good? It always feels better to lie in a bed you made yourself, right?

Your claim was that he's already unified the country. Sure a lot of women voted for trump, but the protests yesterday show that he hasn't unified the country.

Give me an example of a president who has united the country. You certainly can't give Obama any credit for doing so. In a multicultural, multi-religious country no president is going to unite everybody. This is especially true when the government is based on a two-party system.

As for "a lot of women", Trump got more than half. The funny thing about women voters is that though the majority tend to lean to the liberal side, they often vote for whom they think is the best candidate, and are less concerned about that candidate's party. Male voters on the other hand tend to vote more along party lines.

Give me an example of a president who has united the country.

I never claimed any did. You on the other hand claimed trump already has. I pointed out how the protests yesterday show quite clearly that he hasn't.

Sorry to inform you that in this election, more than any other, the female vote decided the outcome. And the female vote went to Trump.

Did more American woman vote for Trump than did for any other candidate ? I didn't see that anywhere. Source ?

No and No! Trump will wage the civil war with media. He loves lecturing however not listening. USA will be disintegrated as far as Trump will not give up fight against media.

The ability to protest is a sign of a vibrant , tolerant democracy and the fact that there wasn't a heavy police crackdown shows just how the new POTUS is!!!

I think he won't be able to, not because he doesn't want to, but because liberals are sore losers, whiny and refuse to calm down or even try, so at this point, Trump needs to do what he was elected to do. Now on the flip side, had Hillary won the election conservatives wouldn't have gone out on a riot spree, looted, smashed cars and windows and cried like babies, they would just by time, fine the appropriate candidate that champions their cause and take it from there in the next election cycle, but either way, the country is completely divided, either way, if Hillary were president, millions would disapprove and now Trump is president you will see millions disapprove. But as long as the Democrats continue with their bombastic assaults, insults and threats, they're not going to win anything anytime soon. Imagine if conservatives would have behaved and done the same thing when Obama won, the left wouldn't have tolerated it for one bit, we all know that because every person engaging in that behavior would be labeled a racist. At this point, Trump needs to be like GW, ignore the media completely, let them do what they do and should do what he needs to do and that's it.

Folks, this is AMERICA we're talking about. The vast majority of Americans are individualists who abhor the idea of being taken care of or labelled. We may unite for certain causes at certain times but that is the exception rather than the rule. The whole idea that a president could---or even should---doesn't stand up to reality.

@bass4funk** I am trying to give a thumbs up to your comment, but for some reason I am not allowed to, so I want to say YAY! Agreed with all you said. I think there has never been a comment you've made that I could disagree with. Thumbs way up !

@Michelle Bailey. I thumbed up bass4funk's previous post for you!

Many of the protesters seem to be women -- single women without families. I think the new president will know to support families ahead of special interest groups.

Not in a million years.

Whether Trump is popular or not the strong dollar has to stop. Tired of having a weak yen and getting short changed when buying foreign currency. Thanks so much for making the dollar stronger Trump.

He and his cabinet want to WIDEN the divisions. They want America to be split into First Class, Business Class, and Economy Class. The First Class people want to live in a bubble, shielded from everyone else -- gated communities, private schools, toll lanes on freeways, tax loopholes, etc. They want to pay for the privilege of avoiding all contact with non-WASPS.

I would be inclined to say no. Without ignoring the media and getting to work as the President he won't unify anything, and unfortunately he seems to lack the ability to ignore the media.

As for the womens marches over the weekend...? I'm not entirely sure that they weren't misrepresented by either the organizers, or the media, at some point. My 72 year old mother(sound mind, sound body, thankfully) went down to Chicago to join in the Womens Rights rally this weekend, and was sorely disappointed/disillusioned that the entire thing seemed to be an orchestrated anti Trump rally, rather than having anything to do with womens rights around the world. As an aside... I have no idea who she voted for for the presidency, but she was saddened that the original agenda/platform of womens rights had been shoved aside and reduced to a rabble of people complaining about who was elected President.

Can Trump unite the U.S.? Can health live along side disease? Can good and evil coexist? Can light and dark be together? Can Truth live with a lie?

There will be no unification under Trump. (There will be no unification under ANY President.)

All the protesting women assumed Hilary was a shoe in. Therefore they did not bother to vote. I guess they should have if they really thought she was something special.

I'm curious to know, if he is so unpopular, how did he win the election? Also, how many of these protestors voted? I know many people refused to vote because they didn't like either candidate, which is just stupid!

I'm not quite sure how anyone here can claim to know either what all protesting women assumed about Hillary, whether or not they were single parents or the more ludicrous, that they didn't know what they were protesting for, but here are some actual facts with regards to how women voted.

58% of eligible US voters, voted in the 2016 presidential election and of that 58%, 52% is estimated to be female. 54% of Mrs. Clinton's voters were women, and 42% of Mr. Trump's, an overall change of only one percentage point in Mrs. Clinton's favor compared with 2012. 41% of her voters and 53% of Mr. Trump's were men, an overall change of 5% points in his favor.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Women supported Clinton over Trump by 54% to 42%. This is about the same as the Democratic advantage among women in 2012 (55% Obama vs. 44% Romney) and 2008 (56% Obama vs. 43% McCain).

"By 53% to 41%, more men supported Trump than Clinton (the 12-point margin is identical to the margin by which women supported Clinton). The advantage for Trump among men is larger than the 7-point advantage Romney had in 2012 and much different than in 2008, when men preferred Obama over McCain by a single point. Trump’s performance among men is similar to that of George W. Bush in the 2004 and 2000 elections, where he won men by 11 points in each election.

The gender gap in presidential vote preference is among the widest in exit polls dating back to 1972. However, it is not dramatically higher than in some other recent elections, including the 2000 contest between Bush and Al Gore."

@toolonggone

Thanks for posting facts. You are one of the few commenters here who bothered to back up you claim with a source. I did read that more woman (total) voted for Hilliary but more woman with only a high school degree voted for Trump. I am not even a Hilliary fan, but I want people to put up (sources) or shut up.

@bruin,

May I ask, why you would believe what the Pew Research organization trumpets as fact? (pun intended)

Note: I am not claiming it is not fact...I am making no claim at all! I am merely trying to understand why you believe them to be true.

ramses68JAN. 24, 2017 - 05:11AM JST I would be inclined to say no. Without ignoring the media and getting to work as the President he won't unify anything, and unfortunately he seems to lack the ability to ignore the media.

The media is the least of the Donald's problems, which starts with the fact that he is easily the least qualified person ever to be "elected." His popularity was lower on inauguration day that it was at the election. The longer he is in office, the more divisive he will become. This has nothing to do with the media.

As for the womens marches over the weekend...? I'm not entirely sure that they weren't misrepresented by either the organizers, or the media, at some point.

Knowing some two dozen women who marched in Seattle, DC, NYC and Los Angeles, I can assure you that they were all very much marching in opposition to the Donald and the hard right agenda of the current GOP.

May I ask, why you would believe what the Pew Research organization trumpets as fact? (pun intended)

I don't believe them alone, but my research has show that their statements come close to a number of other sources I have read.

Anyway if you have any others post them and I will read. I was saying that few people are bothering to show any sources, just gut feelings.

...but here are some actual facts with regards to how women voted.

OK, now we've heard the Democrat side presenting actual facts.

Would the Trump supporters care to offer some of their alternative facts in rebuttal?

I fail to see what difference it makes about how many women voted for which candidate. It's almost as if you are trying to make it into a gender war of voting. Were the candidates so sexist in their campaigns? I don't think so! The sad fact is, only 58% of the populous bothered to vote, but it seems a lot more are willing to complain. As far as I'm concerned, if you were one of the 42% who didn't vote, you have no right to complain. Just go back to your TV where you were during the election and suck it up.

Were the candidates so sexist in their campaigns?

Too true, absolutely nothing in the campaign had even the remotest hint of sexism. Definitely neither of the candidates was caught on tape saying he/she liked to grab members of the opposite sex by the genitals without permission. And definitely neither of them faced allegations of sexual misconduct from dozens of members of the opposite sex.

@bruinfan:

I did read that more woman (total) voted for Hilliary but more woman with only a high school degree voted for Trump. I am not even a Hilliary fan, but I want people to put up (sources) or shut up.

...well son, where are your facts?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/20/14061660/women-march-washington-vote-trump

....Many women not only voted for him but were key in getting him over the top. Nationally, Clinton picked up 54 percent of women voters compared with Trump’s mere 42 percent. But Trump outperformed Clinton among white women, winning 53 percent of voters in that demographic. Drilling down further, he beat Clinton among white women without college degrees by 27 points.>

There has always been some level of divisiveness in the U.S. however it started to exponentially get worse under Bush Jr., and continued down the "exponential path" under President Obama. Race relations (which I hoped would increase with President Obama in power) have deteriorated significantly.

I do not see the situation improving under President Trump either and I think this trend will continue.

The great experiment called the United States is starting to disintegrate and it is like the proverbial snowball rolling down hill.

As one who served my country this saddens me tremendously but it almost seems as there is little that can be do to reverse this trend under our new President.

I do think the most vocal of detractors (on both sides of the aisle) get the most attention and it is likely the average American can agree on more issues than one would think.

I recall a conversation I had with a friend of mine a few years ago when the Affordable Care Act was being debated. I was staunchly against the ACA, but I am in favor of a single payer system. My friend, who was a staunch supporter of President Obama - to the point of being willing to agree with anything he said or did, almost without question, proceeded to call me a "right winger" and "racist" for not being for the ACA....in spite of the fact I was quite vocal about being willing to support a single payer system.

I have heard of others having similar experiences as I had above (where the 2 parties talking agree in principle) however the discussing devolves when one side does not fully and completely embrace the other.

It seems that Americans have lost the ability to engage in political discourse without things getting really, really ugly and I am not sure if a single person (such as a President) can resolve this issue.

No mention that the divide widen during the Obama administration.

I'm with Sangetsu. Even though I voted "no", and this poll so far shows 71% "no", Trump has proven people wrong before. No one thought that he could become President, so just because "a lot of people" don't think he can unify the U.S., doesn't mean he can't. BTW, how do you measure "unification"?

@bruinfan,

Of what relevance is it what the education level is of the voter if every vote is equal amongst citizens?

The lower one's level of education the more likely one is to be employed in low level, low paying manufacturing, retail or service industry jobs or jobs that have been replaced by automation. Trump's "populist' appeal was directed at these voters by claiming he would bring manufacturing back to the States and get rid of immigrants who are supposedly taking jobs that Americans would otherwise be doing. Education levels have a correlation to the type of media one consumes, media which has increasingly, over the years, worked to divide the country on a number of issues and to paint Republicans as looking out for the average Joe whilst painting Democrats as an elitist party of policy wonks. How people voted in this election fell very much along education lines so the relevance is real.

Of what relevance is it what the education level is of the voter if every vote is equal amongst citizens?

Mainly in that all people should try to learn more facts. Too many ignorant people think, "I know it all...I know it all", but even Socrates recognized that he need to learn more.

I am not a Trump supporter however I feel that the "Education level" argument does not hold water.

I do not think education level necessarily correlates to intelligence. I have seen many people engaged in factory work who did not have the opportunity to get an education who have equal or greater intelligence than those who have had are managing or supervising them.

The implication that those who have had the opportunity to get an education are necessarily smarter than those who have not had the same opportunity is one indicator of a divided America.

If we removed those without a high level of education from society (for example non college educated people) I believe humans would starve to death in short order.

I know many people with several degrees or a high level of "education" who have not taken time to learn more facts (as bruinfan stated). There are many ways to learn. I would guess I would be considered "well educated" by some, however my greatest lessons and a great deal of my useful knowledge did not come from my formal education.

It is quite possible this type of thinking may have been costly to the Democratic Party in the last election.

Finally I agree with the statement that the media has played a great role in dividing the nation (perhaps by design) but I do not necessarily thing the media has been slanted to portray Republicans as looking out for the "average Joe" and it is likely one of the main reasons Trump got the Republican nomination as he was seen as an outsider (whether he is or not)

its never unified the losing side always complains

No, I don't. Trump could single-handedly save every animal on the endangered species list, outlaw petroleum, red meat, and guns, come out as a gay man, trade the presidential limo in for a Prius, and all the liberals would still hate him.

Trump could single-handedly save every animal on the endangered species list, outlaw petroleum, red meat, and guns, come out as a gay man, trade the presidential limo in for a Prius, and all the liberals would still hate him.

If he did all that, I think you would quickly find that it wouldn't be the liberals hating him.

Well, a different way of looking at it is that with all the massive protests, in a way, people did get united because of him lol.

@Bruin,

If, and only if, a vote counts as a vote, then regardless of ones education level, the most votes wins.

If, and only if, ones level of education would endow ones vote with more weight, then levels of education amongst voters would matter. Unless one is claiming that a more educated voter ought have more say-so than a voter less educated, then it is irrelevant what the education level of a voter would happen to be.

You write, "Mainly in that all people should try to learn more facts."____I agree. The point of the argument must then be WHAT is fact. Is it what the media promulgates? Is it found in a consensus?

Ultimately, unless one is personally involved with a particular matter, then an appeal to an authority must be made. How do we deal with the issue that what one person views as authoritative another disregards as specious?

The people causing division are the race baiters and other haters. Healing the division is the choice and responsibility of each individual, not any one person. In the words of MJ:

"I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place (If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place) Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change (Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change)"

Funny question. Many of the people who say he can't unite the country are themselves engaged in dividing it. And they don't seem to be aware of it even.

Many of the people who say he can't unite the country are themselves engaged in dividing it.

Heh, reminds me of people pushing bigoted stances, blaming Obama for not eliminating racial issues.

Did more American woman vote for Trump than did for any other candidate ?

No, they didn't. More voted for Hillary, but Trump bled some of Hillay's support among women by appealing to nativist white women. Source here.

https://qz.com/833003/election-2016-all-women-voted-overwhelmingly-for-clinton-except-the-white-ones/

Women did vote overwhelmingly to elect Clinton, but it was white women who helped hand Trump the presidency, according to Edison national election poll. Overall, 54% of women voted for Clinton, much higher than the 42% of women who voted for Trump. But when the women’s vote is divided by race, it becomes clear that black women actually largely drove the so-called gender gap against Trump. The majority of non-college educated white women (64%) voted for Trump, while 35% backed Clinton. This figure is far higher than non-college educated black women, of which only 3% voted for Trump, and non-college educated Hispanic women, of which 25% voted for Trump. Black, Hispanic and other non-white women backed Clinton in far greater numbers.

Well, the tried and tested way of unifying the country and getting votes in the U.S.A. is starting a war. If all else fails, I expect he will do that. He seems to be prepping for a war with China.

Yes, he is unifying the country, albeit against him. He has already inspired the biggest demonstrations and people on sns are sharing ways to become active, numbers to call (White House, senators, and "his" hotels etc). So hopefully this lunatic Mad-Man will have left the building very soon.

Trump will never unify the country. Frankly , I don't care. I'm a Trump supporter and nothing will change that. The people who are protesting are mainly democrat sore losers , wacko's , leftist , feminist and gay's ..Hillary Clinton's crowd...I have read that George Soros and democrat party is backing many of these protests ...So, they can whine and march in the streets till hell freezes over...Trump is the president...

Tokyo-Engr: I am not a Trump supporter however I feel that the "Education level" argument does not hold water.

I'm not sure what "education level argument" you're referring to but if you simply Google "education level and voting" you can find any number of sites, both conservative and liberal, giving you information on the education levels of voters and how they voted.

I do not think education level necessarily correlates to intelligence. I have seen many people engaged in factory work who did not have the opportunity to get an education who have equal or greater intelligence than those who have had are managing or supervising them.

Who is saying that it does? Fools and wise men can be found in all walks of life, regardless of their education level.

The implication that those who have had the opportunity to get an education are necessarily smarter than those who have not had the same opportunity is one indicator of a divided America.

Again, who is implying that? The point is simply that ones education level often determines what employment opportunities one will have and the income level you can expect to achieve. As has been stated already, the lower your education level, the more likely you are to be employed in an low paying industry or one which has replaced you with automation. These factors will likely have an effect on what arguments sway you and who you will vote for. Not only that but your education level is also a factor in whether or not you'll even vote.

If we removed those without a high level of education from society (for example non college educated people) I believe humans would starve to death in short order.

True but somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.

Trump seemed to have the opposite effect, it fractured the the voters, the republican party, the democratic party and whatnot.

No, not because of Trump, but because liberals and conservatives are so entrenched into their own mindsets that they're blinded from noticing any actual progress or regression by their own overinflated egos.

As an American citizen I don't care if he "unifies" us. I want him to do what is right, and so far he is right on target. Obama sure did not uniify us! As far as the media goes who cares. The US media is corrupt, biased, and does not report news. It reports the opinions they subscribe to. Trump will be the best medicine we have had in decades.

He will never win the woman over who really hate Trump. It a like asking Jews to like Hitler, Most Espainic American women, every Moslam woman, and every African American women will not get behind President Trump That a Majority not a Minority.

Trump and Putin will ally ally and, outside of China, will carve up the rest of the World for themselves.

CaptDingleheimerJAN. 25, 2017 - 10:48AM JST No, I don't. Trump could single-handedly save every animal on the endangered species list, outlaw petroleum, red meat, and guns, come out as a gay man, trade the presidential limo in for a Prius, and all the liberals would still hate him.

Except that the Donald isn't in the least inclined to pursue any of those things so you have no argument.

He has certainly united us against him.