Trump is definitely a worse President than anyone I’ve been alive for. And he is one of the largest systemic threats to our government that I have witnessed. Perhaps Nixon was similar, but even that seemed different. That said, Trump is definitely not as bad as the consensus. But given consensus has him one step above Hitler, that isn’t very hard to do.
I guess what I’m saying is I am #LongTrump #CigarButts
Last I checked Trump didn’t start multi trillion dollar wars on false pretense, #metoo his secretary, preside over eight years of unregulated hubris into a financial disaster or sign a wasted multi trillion rushed bailout that wound-up going primarily into earmarks and pork belly spending. All the blah blah blahing out there like most presidents won’t even be remembered in 10 years. In the end it’ll just be a guy who renegotiated some trade deals, raised some tariffs and made a tax cut. People will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Mostly true. But given the fact you are on the buyside, I’m surprised how infrequently you seperate process from outcomes. Bad president was never defined, so who knows if we are even talking about the same thing. Let’s use your war example. If we had the last 5 Presidents experience 9/11 during their term and were able to rank order there responses, I’m certain Trump would be below average.
You are correct to suggest that so far his bad President character hasn’t translated into much real world consequences. As far as I know, for example he hasn’t assassinated American civilian abroad like Obama did or start a war like Bush did. But the fact it hasn’t occurred doesn’t mean it won’t occur or that it isn’t a higher probability than with better presidents
Things he has had a definite impact on are harder to quantify. It’s hard to know how much the norms erosion, hollow state department, etc. Will have transient vs persistent impacts on the world stage.
B.S. President Trump has proven himself again and again, despite what the naysayers and bias commentators have said. They are looking at the data and getting it wrong. Maybe you should look at the accuracy of your assessment and process regarding what conclusion you came up to regrading the primary and the presidential election where there is a known outcome than to use the same logic to analyze something that hasn’t/won’t happen.
Yeah, HP hit it, just drivel as usual. Lets just make up scenarios. Trump’s going to start a Korean war! A year later, Korean rapprochement. Haha, kids these days. Separating processes and outcomes followed by random opinions, ok.
I guess that’s right, but about as satisfying as a vege burger. MAGA?
Same could be said for Obama. For Trump, you may need to check again, because the costs from his trade war are adding up. Now billions of our tax dollars are going to subsidize farmers who can’t sell to China. Surely you cannot say that Trump lacks hubris. Recall he gave our trade allies the proverbial finger, then started a trade war with China. At best that’s hubris, at worst it just ignorance and stupidity.
Sometimes you guys make persuasive defenses for Trump, but not this time. Trump has only proven that he is incapable of dealing honestly, and that he sees everything in the world with a price tag. Ironically just like Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock. Think back over your life, I am sure you met a classmate, work colleague, friend of a friend, or a relative who was dishonest or chronically bullshitting or exaggerating or manipulative. You still know that guy? Probably not, because these types of people are an exhausting, selfish, energy sucking drain. These people like Trump can have some big successes and some equally as large failures. That’s fine for a private businessman, but do you want that for the country?
IMO, other countries “sees everything in the world as a price tag” and the United States have been taken advantage of for too long.
Have you ever had any of those number of people you mention in your life, that when you end up going out, or doing anything that involves money, somehow you end up paying more than your fair share? Always asking you for a favor and never repaying or not there when you ask for help? I try not to be a person that counts every single act but when it always goes one way, it must be addressed.
The Chinese, the Europeans, and many other countries have very very smart people who negotiate their trade deals and they are not always honest or fair either. President Trump is calling them out, like a private businessman would as opposed to an inexperienced community organizer.
What a joke. The US have an army of diplomats with lifetimes of experiences to evaluate the pros and cons of any engagement of foreign powers. The nonsense that Trump is some genius business man that sees things that were missed over decades, a timeframe where US only increased its power on the world stage, is ridiculous and actually pretty dangerous.
NAFTA, proposed TPP, contributions to NATO, even something like a postal treaty… the U.S. has been ripped off for too long because the people negotiating, signing or letting these deals stand are either incompetent or just don’t care.
Trump has shown that it is possible to extract better trade terms from other countries just by asking. The new NAFTA is better for ths US, even if incremental. Ironically, it is certain people in Congress who are threatening to derail this new agreement.
China’s militarism and expanding economic influence have been US concerns for decades but that previous Presidents have consciously postponed dealing with. If Trump took the concessions that China has already offered, US’s market access to China would increase; he is just doubling down to try to get China to make even more meaningful concessions (how far he should go in this regard is subject to debate).
His criticisms of EU members’ contributions to global initiatives relative to the US are valid. Europeans are just butt hurt now that some American government doesn’t want to keep paying disproportionately for their sht. The US is strong relative to EU, not because EU has agreements that are highly favorable to the US. It’s because EU is disunited, has poor central policy, and highly protectionist labor markets relative to the US. When Christine Lagarde argued that we should just value old agreements forever, I could not contain my laughter. Typical French attitude is just to assume they are right forever and not look forward to changing policy to be more efficient in the future. Trump is not the best, but these EU people are stuck in the 19th century.
Trump’s diplomacy is callous and his brash nature hurts his foreign policy effectiveness. However, on the base level, he is addressing real issues that previous administration just didn’t want to deal with. It’s reasonable to disagree with Trump’s undiplomatic approach to international issues, but we should still value his willingness to bring up and argue about these issues.
Art of the deal baby
look at all the great agreement he was able to renegotiate and how successful they have been
tremendous dealmaker
So an “army of diplomats” didn’t think in >20 years with changing economies they could extract a better deal from NAFTA, it was just so perfect to begin with but my college apartment lease couldn’t go 12 months without a renegotiation? What a total crock. These phenomenal agreements explain decades of growing trade deficits. The reality is everyone had to be dragged to the table kicking and screaming because the new deals were better for the US. Plus everything Ohai said. I mean lets talk about Macron’s globalism speech, you realize these clowns have for decades been underspending on defense and running to the US every time they need logistics support to run a mission while bragging up their infrastructure and health systems.
US has been providing military and logistics support to France from at least 2013 to present in North Africa (Mali/Niger) including aerial refueling and transport.
Literally any operation done involving European troops involves the US because other nations are significantly under-invested with limited logistics, special systems and transport capabilities. It’s what sets the US apart from every nation including China and Russia. They all lack the core capabilities required to maintain foreign operational tempo.
"France has about 4,000 troops in Mali leading operations against militants linked to al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The French forces in Mali were those who came to the rescue of U.S. troops in Niger during the 2017 ambush.
The U.S. supports the French effort with intelligence, surveillance and logistics such as refueling and transportation. U.S. funding for regional French-led operations is about $46 million in the latest budget."
"In addition to U.S. Air Force personnel who managed the influx of personnel and cargo in Mali’s capital Bamako, U.S. special operators flew into Mali on small, specialized U.S. Air Force transport aircraft with discreet civilian-style paint jobs to directly assist French forces on the ground. According to one official history that the author obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, the C-146A Wolfhound, a militarized version of the twin engine Dornier 328, was particularly important.
“The C-146A proved instrumental and provided U.S. support to the French counter-offensive,” the 524th Special Operations Squadron explained in a review of its activities during 2013. “The C-146A was also the first U.S. aircraft to land in Gao [, a major city in Northern Mali,] following the offensive against Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, delivering U.S. special operations forces to the frontlines of conflict.
This support has been constant ever since and has continued in response to French requests. The U.S. military itself had suggested it would’ve preferred to end the partnership entirely years ago.
In January 2014, Defense Department spokesman U.S. Air Force Major Robert Firman told Stars and Stripes “the Pentagon does not expect it to go on indefinitely.” “So, we’re hoping to continue to see, obviously, the French success there and hopefully our mission will continue to slow down,” U.S. Air Force Major Nicholas Schindler, then commander of the 351st Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron in Moron, Spain, also told the outlet at the time."
Nice added links bs
I admit HP, BS 1/3 of Ohai and the other anti-globalists (also possible devil worshippers) have a strong argument when trump gets concessions on trade just by asking. That seems to suggest that other countries know they have it too good. But as a confirmed globalist, I think it is more nuanced. For example, the US is so rich and dominant both economically and culturally, that any advantage other countries are getting on the US – no matter how unfair, is marginal at best. Also, these so-called concessions might just be economic bullying, that if countries are faced with the choice of accepting concessions or losing all trade with the US, then they take the less devastating option. Lastly, these concessions may just be countries making meaningless gestures to someone they know is a vain, fragile, egomaniac who must be seen winning at the deal.
Again, I admit it looks bad for the globalist crowd, but to me it is clear that the US and China and Germany have been clear winners. The US is not being taken advantage of, instead it is playing the game of comparative advantages and winning.
Yes, I cannot stand those people. But that’s not what’s going on in global trade. Better analogy is that you invite a friend to dinner and agree to pay because they can’t afford it…and you do it knowingly because you enjoy their company or because they have hot friends.
Kidding aside, I hear you that other countries take advantage of the US financially. It sounds horrible and is a great election tool, but is it really a big deal? We give something like US $1 billion in foreign aid, but get back $1.5 billion in aid related spending on US goods and services. We spend on military defense abroad, but we do it to keep in place a world order that benefits the US. WE allow country like Mexico to build consumer products where they have a comparative advantage, but that results in much cheaper goods for US consumers, raising their quality of life. I know you can make arguments that some US workers get a lousy deal in this calculus, it’s true. But that doesn’t mean that US as a country was taken advantage of.
Seriously mate, the french are the worst. Just look at the state of any former french colony – france took what they could and left them all basket-cases.