I voted "no".

Trump might have made some baby steps on things like abortion funding, etc. but it all won't matter if the bloody neo-cons get their way, and we find ourselves in full nuclear exchange with Russia.

These batshit insane lunatics honestly want World War 3. That includes a bunch of Democrats in Congress too of course.

But honestly, a neo-con Republican isn't much better than a Democrat!

What does it matter if Republicans are more socially conservative if we find ourselves in an apocalyptic, post-nuclear war world? There won't be abortion AVAILABLE in such a world, as well as any other advanced medical care, running water, electricity...

I guess I would vote for a third party, or abstain.

The poll doesn't have enough options/doesn't cover all the bases.

Your poll is not adequate nor clear:

1. Are we talking among the sea of Republicans who ran VS Hillary?
2. Are we talking between Trump and Hillary?


If it were among all the Republicans who participated in the 2017 elections, the only vote where the results would have truly been different is of Rand Paul. Every other Republican would have done "deep state's" bidding.

If it were between Trump and Hillary again? I would not want to see Hillary in the White House nor Bill Clinton near it. They can plan whatever they want from the outside with surrogates. I guess I much rather a slow roll out that a speedy roll out. 

I don't know if I would vote for Trump again. I'm not going to condemn him for this one terrible move (bombing Syria), but if he's keeps making these types of moves, then I'm done supporting him.

I like Alex Jones' take on the matter. He emphatically condemns this move, but still supports what Trump is trying to do here in the U.S.

I'm very disappointed in Trump. I thought he was smarter than this. Bombing Syria so that the world thinks of him as being "Bold", or so that the world stops aligning him with Russia is really stupid. And there's still not proof that Assad bombed his own people. Assad helps Christians in his country. I listened today to part of a video by Paul Joseph Watson, and he mentioned that there's a village of Syrian Christians near the air base that was bombed, and that planes took off from that airbase that were defending the town, which also has a long historic Christian history. Are they still going to be defended now? I don't know if the base is still functional.

One of the things I really hate about the neocons and their allies in the media is that they always have to have a villain to blame things on. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are dead, so now they are continually blaming Putin and Assad for everything that's wrong in the world. And they were blaming Trump, until he bombed Syria.

It's obvious, too, that he's under Zionist influence, likely from his son-in-law and his daughter, mainly.

I do not really regret voting for him because I believe Hillary would have been worse,

Well, I most certainly regret it ... since I don't abide by "lesser evil" moral reasoning.

I had a lot of misgivings about voting for Trump because I was 90% convinced that he was a Zionist agent just play-acting to get elected.  I voted for him on the 10% hope that he wasn't.  Unfortunately, my hopes were just wishful thinking.

As stated above, the poll needs more options, as it assumes one either A) voted for Trump, or B) Doesn't vote at all AND insists we need a Catholic monarchy.   I think most Traditional Catholics would be happy to vote for a Catholic leader such as G. Garcia Moreno (if we had such a candidate).  Plus, there are other reasons to not vote than insisting on a Catholic monarchy, such as the fact that our elections are so rigged.  The poll should include other options for folks who are glad (and vindicated) that they didn't vote for Trump, including by other means such as voting for a write-in.  So, no offense, but it's a very inadequate poll. 

Yes, but only because Hillary was worse.