Donald Trump

[Cornish Piskie]

Reagan and the Contras, prison industrial complex, the drug war, etc. Truman and Korea. Kennedy and Vietnam. Various presidents and Cointelpro. McKinley and the Phillipines. We go back further and westward expansion, the genocide of indigenous American peoples, slavery and the various annexations of land across the southern border. How is any of this noble? We don't need to redeem the history of the executive to prove that Trump is awful.

Rather selective and although I don't disagree with any of the things you list above as being correct, they aren't the entire picture.

But my overriding point was that it is the OFFICE of President which has dignity and gravitas. Some just don't live up to it. Trump less so than any other.

But you want to list the bad, well, let's counter that with a few notable achievements, just for the sake of balance:

Kennedy inherited Vietnam (and was stitched up by the CIA over the Bay of Pigs incident). Towards the end of his life he wanted to pull America OUT of Vietnam and had he lived to serve a second term may have begun that process. He handled the Cuban Missile Crisis with skill and negotiated a Soviet climbdown without the nuclear conflagration the world feared. He created the Peace Corps to help undeveloped nations and was highly proactive in Civil Rights. He also committed the USA to putting mankind on the moon, truly humanities greatest achievement to date. Four words: "ich bein ein Berliner".

Andrew Jackson: He was responsible for getting people the laws they wanted instead of leaving everything up to the Congress. The Tariff act was passed in 1832, which would be significant to America’s economy forever.

James Monroe: Settled tensions between England and America by coming to an agreement of reducing the number of ships present in the great lakes which triggered a wave of friendly cooperation and peaceful negotiations which still exists today between America, England and France.

Theodore Roosevelt: He controlled trusts so that small businesses and workers were not exploited. He wanted every one to have a Square Deal. which is the label that has been attached to his presidency. He passed laws which protected the people from impure food and drugs and forced the owners of the coal mines during that time to pay better wages to its miners. He is recognised as doing more than any other president to save natural resources and established national parks and more than 125 million acres of national forests. If you're a sports fan, read: "The Man In The Arena" If that doesn't inspire you nothing will.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7-it-is-not-the-critic-who-counts-not-the-man


Franklin D Roosevelt: Had to deal with the depression. He got congress to pass laws which helped farmers, small businesses and people who were about to lose their homes during that time. He kept moving on with his social reforms which changed the course of American government. During WWII he sent supplies to Britain which kept this country alive. After the war he set the foundations of the United Nations.

Woodrow Wilson: Did all he could to keep America out of WWI but had to concede in the end but even then he drew up the 14 point peace plan which included the creation of a League of Nations which, although it ended in failure, created the principle of nations having a forum to resolve disputes through discussion rather than going to war.

And of course........ Abraham Lincoln: Issued the Emancipation Proclamation and worked for the 13th Amendment to ban slavery. He held the Union together when it would otherwise have fallen apart even though it took a bloody civil war to do it. If you want to know what a genuine statesman sounds like read the Gettysburg Address.

OK... counter arguments to your points established. There have been more good presidents than bad and probably more great achievements than failures.

We'll call it draw, yeah..?

 

[Abertawe]

There hasn't been an american president since 1933 when the big dawgs took complete ownership of the US of A - well except for one and he got shotted off before he let the cat out the bag for reals.

 

[silkyman]

If you judge presidents based on what they've actually done rather than the cunty things they say on Twitter, then he's probably about average. Obama, as an example, has far more blood on his hands. I'm not sure that saying nice things about diversity makes up for that.

Obama was in power for seven years longer than Trump has been. He has AMPLE opportunity to drench his hands in blood.

 

[Jockney]

Rather selective and although I don't disagree with any of the things you list above as being correct, they aren't the entire picture.

But my overriding point was that it is the OFFICE of President which has dignity and gravitas. Some just don't live up to it. Trump less so than any other.

But you want to list the bad, well, let's counter that with a few notable achievements, just for the sake of balance:

Kennedy inherited Vietnam (and was stitched up by the CIA over the Bay of Pigs incident). Towards the end of his life he wanted to pull America OUT of Vietnam and had he lived to serve a second term may have begun that process. He handled the Cuban Missile Crisis with skill and negotiated a Soviet climbdown without the nuclear conflagration the world feared. He created the Peace Corps to help undeveloped nations and was highly proactive in Civil Rights. He also committed the USA to putting mankind on the moon, truly humanities greatest achievement to date. Four words: "ich bein ein Berliner".

Andrew Jackson: He was responsible for getting people the laws they wanted instead of leaving everything up to the Congress. The Tariff act was passed in 1832, which would be significant to America’s economy forever.

James Monroe: Settled tensions between England and America by coming to an agreement of reducing the number of ships present in the great lakes which triggered a wave of friendly cooperation and peaceful negotiations which still exists today between America, England and France.

Theodore Roosevelt: He controlled trusts so that small businesses and workers were not exploited. He wanted every one to have a Square Deal. which is the label that has been attached to his presidency. He passed laws which protected the people from impure food and drugs and forced the owners of the coal mines during that time to pay better wages to its miners. He is recognised as doing more than any other president to save natural resources and established national parks and more than 125 million acres of national forests. If you're a sports fan, read: "The Man In The Arena" If that doesn't inspire you nothing will.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7-it-is-not-the-critic-who-counts-not-the-man


Franklin D Roosevelt: Had to deal with the depression. He got congress to pass laws which helped farmers, small businesses and people who were about to lose their homes during that time. He kept moving on with his social reforms which changed the course of American government. During WWII he sent supplies to Britain which kept this country alive. After the war he set the foundations of the United Nations.

Woodrow Wilson: Did all he could to keep America out of WWI but had to concede in the end but even then he drew up the 14 point peace plan which included the creation of a League of Nations which, although it ended in failure, created the principle of nations having a forum to resolve disputes through discussion rather than going to war.

And of course........ Abraham Lincoln: Issued the Emancipation Proclamation and worked for the 13th Amendment to ban slavery. He held the Union together when it would otherwise have fallen apart even though it took a bloody civil war to do it. If you want to know what a genuine statesman sounds like read the Gettysburg Address.

OK... counter arguments to your points established. There have been more good presidents than bad and probably more great achievements than failures.

We'll call it draw, yeah..?

You said that the Office of the President of the US was a noble institution. I said that the office has a long and depressing history of acting in ignoble ways, and indeed that inability to rise to the virtue of its founding claims is built into the very structure of the republic itself (expansionism, slavery, etc, without those things, the US state does not exist). That you can find instances of where individual presidents have acted with alleged noble intentions does not redeem the office itself, especially when you consider that many of those examples are of individual presidents attempting to prevent further damage caused in the first place, if only in part, by the executive. Further still, these individual acts have failed to add up to a fundamental retreat from imperialism, so the office is still tainted by that continuous political and economic reality.

If it makes you feel better, I can remove the names of the presidents from my initial list and keep only the crimes.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

You said that the Office of the President of the US was a noble institution. I said that the office has a long and depressing history of acting in ignoble ways, and indeed that inability to rise to the virtue of its founding claims is built into the very structure of the republic itself (expansionism, slavery, etc, without those things, the US state does not exist). That you can find instances of where individual presidents have acted with alleged noble intentions does not redeem the office itself, especially when you consider that many of those examples are of individual presidents attempting to prevent further damage caused in the first place, if only in part, by the executive. Further still, these individual acts have failed to add up to a fundamental retreat from imperialism, so the office is still tainted by that continuous political and economic reality.

If it makes you feel better, I can remove the names of the presidents from my initial list and keep only the crimes.

No need to do that. I can take the heat.

You clearly feel that the American system of democracy is fatally flawed and irredeemable so might I ask what you would replace it with, and what measures could be put in place to ensure that they could never do anything nasty ever again....? I am all ears, O wise one.

We could argue the toss over who has done what for ever and a day and come to no concensus. And if all this comes down to is listing bad deeds done by USA, we might compare them to the crimes of, say, Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge or even the reign of terror in the newly created French Republic. And we British aren't exactly spotless, are we..? Anyone for the Peterloo Massacre..? The invention of Concentration Camps in South Africa? Sticking children up chimneys or sending them to workhouses...? We could throw Bloody Sunday into the ring if you like.

I'm sure you get the drift. Pots shouldn't call kettles black.

I can see it's a big issue for you but I don't wish to get in a row over it. Grown ups agree to disagree when there is clearly no possibility of a meeting of minds. 'nuff said, methinks. I repeat my former suggestion. Let's call it quits.

 

[Jockney]

No need to do that. I can take the heat.

You clearly feel that the American system of democracy is fatally flawed and irredeemable so might I ask what you would replace it with, and what measures could be put in place to ensure that they could never do anything nasty ever again....? I am all ears, O wise one.

This is both false alternative and straw man. I am not calling for the immediate end of liberal democracy nor am I suggesting that it has a monopoly on destruction.

We could argue the toss over who has done what for ever and a day and come to no concensus. And if all this comes down to is listing bad deeds done by USA, we might compare them to the crimes of, say, Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge or even the reign of terror in the newly created French Republic. And we British aren't exactly spotless, are we..? Anyone for the Peterloo Massacre..? The invention of Concentration Camps in South Africa? Sticking children up chimneys or sending them to workhouses...? We could throw Bloody Sunday into the ring if you like.

Which begs the question: you are capable of employing some sort of critical historicism when pressed, so why the need for platitudes about the nobility of the American executive?

I'm sure you get the drift. Pots shouldn't call kettles black.

Can you tell me, then, what it is that I believe?

I can see it's a big issue for you but I don't wish to get in a row over it. Grown ups agree to disagree when there is clearly no possibility of a meeting of minds. 'nuff said, methinks. I repeat my former suggestion. Let's call it quits.

Another bit of grown-up advice: if you want people to engage you in discussion, don't condescend to posters as if they're children in need of a lesson

 

[Stevencc]

I had the temerity to disagree with Cornish Piskie on two very minor issues on here and both times she responded in a condescending, haughty manner - apparently taken aback by the notion that someone may feel slightly differently to her about a given matter.

I don't think she likes her views being challenged very much.

 

[Renegade]

I never really understood the need to come up with an alternative solution when criticising a system. It's whataboutery. You can point out the flaws in something without having a concrete alternative lined up. American democracy may have been one of the more successful (or less evil) forces of the past three centuries, but it has been entrenched in slavery, imperialism and general plunder from its inception to this very day. Not really a controversial statement to claim its highest office is merely noble by pretense.

That said, the likely reason Trump hasn't caused more damage is that his administration is so incompetent and disorganised that it isn't capable of radically changing legislation or effectively going to war. He's failed on almost everything he's tried to do so far. I wouldn't really be surprised if he does less meaningful (legislative or foreign policy) damage than Obama did during his first term, though not for want of trying. I think they way he acts (ignobly) is possibly preventing him from doing more harm, so arguably a good thing from a utilitarian perspective...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The mainstream media is in danger of believing it's own propaganda. Trump is clownish but not of low intellect. He didn't bungle his way into office or fluke turning millions into billions. He talks like he doesn't give a fuck because it reads like honesty, while apology reads like weakness and ineptitude. The public doesn't punish public figures for being politically incorrect because they care about political correctness, they punish them because by those politician's own standards they have just fucked up. His team identified this and exploited it and were the only people unsurprised when the votes were counted. If "he's a dangerous dumbass" is the best his opposition can muster then expect him to cruise to a second term when the time comes.

 

[Renegade]

That's all fine on the campaign trail, it was a huge reason for his victory and it could lead to a second term, it doesn't mean that he's competent in any way as POTUS. What success has Trump had so far? Apart from his tax reform bill, it's pretty much all been failure. He bungled an executive order for a travel ban, his attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare didn't even get to the floor, his Mexican border wall went nowhere, his national security adviser had to resign within 24 hours due to Russian links, he lost a chief of staff, he has lost two press secretaries, he takes pot shots at men he formerly hired/kept on, he attempted and failed to coerce the head of the FBI to drop the Russian investigation, his secretary of state called him a fucking moron, his republican confidants (Murdoch, Ailes) have called him worse and the guy behind his successful campaign left on top of this (Trump is now calling Bannon a nut too). He has had more staff turnover than any other president and the day to day workings of the bureaucracy rely on the team around him.

None of that is even mentioning the meaningless twitter scandal after twitter scandal, faux pax after slip of the tongue, deflection via celebrity admonishment or that he's hired his family to replace his advisors. I don't have any doubt that he can campaign, can run a business and probably has the skills to back this up. Can he govern and work with people to actually do anything meaningful? Other than be a symbol against PC culture or for white working class nationalism? He hasn't suggested that he can so far. Amenability is required to govern and he's been burning bridges with potential allies since he took office. You can have a high intellect and be utterly inept at a job, even for eight years. I think he is highlighting that the role is more symbolic than anything these days.

 

[Laker]

Renegade’s post is excellent.

I’d add too that American presidents have always had to “work with the enemy” in order to get through their policies - what I mean is that they rarely have enough power in all chambers just to do what they want (it’s both a strength and a weakness of the US political system). Other presidents have realised this and taken a softer tone with the opposition party in order to get through the legislation they want. Trump’s policies are very “full on” and combined with his confrontational tone, it’s hardly surprising you end up with a government shutdown.

A softer tact would work wonders for him.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

That is of course assuming that he actually cares about any of those policies. In terms of maintaining his support taking a hard line is a win-win. He either accomplishes the objective and pushes the policies through, or he's stopped from doing that by the mainstream establishment. Either outcome perpetuates the populist narrative.

 

[Johnnyt]

Hope we start importing corn dogs i loves em

 

[Jockney]

That is of course assuming that he actually cares about any of those policies. In terms of maintaining his support taking a hard line is a win-win. He either accomplishes the objective and pushes the policies through, or he's stopped from doing that by the mainstream establishment. Either outcome perpetuates the populist narrative.

Taking a hard line on everything not enough to give him an electoral majority, though, which is probs why he's apparently willing to concede on some of his recent rhetoric. More interesting developments will be in the Democratic Party who against all good sense seem to be going against the wishes of their base in their commitment to dead centre candidates and policies.

 

[Red]

Orange Donny on a day trip with the grown ups

 

[Blitzballer]

Looks like Obama and co are in deep shit when this memo gets released

 

[Blitzballer]

 

[Johnnyt]

I didnt realise this Johnnytodd started this thread too.....what a legend.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

Seems like today is going to be where either the rise of fall of Trump may begin........large chunks of the world have began to hit back at the US for Trumps America first approach.

Canada, China, EU and India all chucked in mass of tarrifs across a wide range of targetted US products.

Trump has seemed to always take the approach that because US buys in more they will always be able to knock the main blow, but will numerous large countries possibly end up together being a larger blow.............it's like a group of smaller kids at School deciding to group together to take on the bully.

It'll be his make or break, the entire aspect of trump's powerbase among the US people is simply on his jobs and money belief, if this trade war f*cks up jobs and income across wide areas of america he'll be f*cked.......of course if he comes out of this with the knock-out punch he'll easily grab 4 more years.

i don't think large chunks of america give a damn about the human rights or immigration news, they only care fully about holding onto their job and being able to live a decent life from it (similar to the Brexit story)

 

[Red]

These trade wars will ultimately cost America jobs.

 

[SUTSS]

These trade wars will ultimately cost America jobs.

But will they cost Trump popularity? Or will they galvanise his support against, what will be portrayed as, foreign powers acting unreasonably against America standing up for itself?

My worry is that it's more likely to be the latter.

 

[PuB]

It's only a matter of time before Melania wears a jacket with 'Help! I'm being held captive against my will,' scrawled across the back.

 

[Abertawe]

Important to highlight when he's right

https://twitter.com/x/status/1017023533061410819

 

[PuB]

I have a tape of Trump calling Mexicans rapists. I wonder if that will help the American public decide if he's racist or not?

 

[mente captus]

And Kennedy were shot. What a bloody joke that is....

 

[epic73]

he also wants a military branch that operates in space

 

[Laker]

I have a tape of Trump calling Mexicans rapists. I wonder if that will help the American public decide if he's racist or not?

Did he say “all” were? If he said “some” then I guess he’s almost certainly correct. It does ignore the point that some Americans, Brits and every other nationality are too, mind.

 

[Abertawe]

Trump was talking about gang members. There's enough bad policy than to rely on out of context words to call him out on.