Is Donald Trump a good president?
in Politics

melef · July 2018

Do you believe that Donald Trump is a good president?

Marcus_Antonius · July 2018

The question at hand cannot be answered without establishing the extent for which we deem "good" to be successful. I should like to take up this debate with the claim that President Donald Trump has been relatively successful in progressing executive orders, while unsuccessful in binding a polarized nation. Of course I should like to elaborate, but only upon knowing what "good" here means. Are we using "good" as a means of comparing Donald Trump to his predecessor, Barack Obama? Or dictating the merits of his actions in general, to which I must admit will be a daunting task.

WordsMatter · July 2018

Honestly I feel like he hasn't really accomplished much. His biggest actions were tax reform, and 2 supreme Court nominees, neither of which took much action on his part. Tax reform was forged by Congress and simply signed by Trump, with little guidance from him in the process. Nominating someone to the supreme Court isn't all that difficult, and past presidency excluded, any president who happens to have a vacancy in the court gets to do it. It's a big deal because they can long Outlast his presidency, but they are working for their own legacy. Finally I throw all executive orders out of consideration. The executive Branch's reach is, and I think many people on both sides can agree with this, just too far. The next Democratic president to come in will simply undo many of Trump's executive orders right away, just like he did to Obama, Obama did to Bush, Bush to Clinton etc.

I don't personally like Trump, but he hasn't been a terrible president, just an absent one. I feel he really hasn't done much and so I don't really consider him good or bad.

Marcus_Antonius · July 2018

@Marcus_Antonius

I concur with much of what you said, it is rather difficult to assess the successes and failures of a President who has held such a position for less than 2 years, seeing as decisions take months, if not years to have a significant effect on the country. However, I disagree with your statement regarding his "absent" presidency. I believe there have been multiple decisions, executive orders and legislative actions under his presidency which have proved important.

Following Donald Trump's presidency, The Corporate Tax Rate had been reduced to it's lowest amount since 1940. A reduction of the Personal Income Tax Rate and Social Security Tax Rate followed. I don't think you could make the claim however that it was solely Congress who forged the bill while Trump "simply signed it". Be that as it may, Donald Trump called for a reduction of taxes prior to his presidency during the election campaign. Furthermore, one could make the same argument regarding the presidents relationship with Congress during the entirety of the United States' history. Is it a fair assessment to give credit for the 1962 Personal Income tax reduction to Congress and not Kennedy? Or the Same Sex Marriage Bill passed in 2015? Of course, to give absolute credit to the president is to assume that the presidency holds absolute power, which is simply untrue, which thereby causes a commonly made confusion.

Another success on President Trump's behalf was his efforts made diplomatically to bring North Korea to the agreement table, which proved successful in resolving hostilities between the 3 Nations, however nothing has come about as of yet. (One cannot disregard his efforts seeing as South Korean President Moon praised him for the contribution Donald Trump has made) Of course, as said previously, I am skeptical on whether or not these talks will prove successful, regardless they have shown to being significant.

What I have written thus far has demonstrated that the decisions that Mr. Trump has made as of today have been significant, and contradict your statement regarding his "absent" presidency. However this debate is oriented towards whether Donald Trump's presidency has been "good" (which leads me back to my original concern with the topic question, but I shall assume "good" is in comparison to the presidents of the 21st century, and it shall focus on his ability to uphold his policies and whether those policies proved beneficial) *Italicized due to inability to fully asses short term programs*

To Thesis my argument, I shall make the claim that Donald Trump has played a significant role thus far, a role in which cannot be fully assessed due to his short span in office. I shall dictate his presidency based off of what he has promised, and the effects of those promises (From what we can see)

In terms of the successes that have occurred under Trump's presidency, there have been multiple. As said previously, taxes have been reduced (both income and corporate). Facts from January 1st, 2018 indicate that over 1.8 million jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is at 3.8% (Lowest it has been since 1999) Corporate profits have increased by 10.1%, and the black unemployment rate is the lowest it has been for over 30 years. Although these numbers indicate his presidency has been economically successful, the implementation of international tariffs has proved unpopular amongst many economists. Furthermore, these successes cannot only be attributed to Trump's presidency (although one could make such an argument) as all of these indications have become present during the latter years of the Obama administration. Moreover, I should like to contrast: Good President and Good Presidency. Although Trump's presidency could be "good", I would not regard him as a "Good President"

This is evidenced by the foul language used by The President of the United States. I do not believe Donald Trump is intellectually superior to his predecessors, nor do I believe him to be a very likable and Charismatic man (Subjective and Anecdotal opinion, but heavily backed up by instances of insanity.) His tweets have done more harm in polarizing an already polarized nation (Very much due to the domestic failures of Bush and the Societal failures of Obama) than they have mended the wounds. Granted the Media have not made it easier for Donald Trump, but his actions have proved to be a failure as of thus far.

To conclude, although i've only provided a surface level of information regarding Trump's presidency within this comment, I believe that he has played a significant role in numerous domestic and diplomatic failures and successes. Not to say that he is a "good president", but rather an important one.

Polaris95 · July 2018

No, not at all. Marcus_Antonius already said, he is just dividing America more and more, polarising the entire country. In his tweets he shows a level of maturity comparable to that of an 8-year old child. He's ruptured all the good relations the US has had with other countries. He, for no reason aside from his own homophobia, banned transgender people from the military, wanted to build a "huuuge" wall between the US and Mexico and stupidly left the Iran deal.
On another note, he has also failed in achieving most of his promises to his voters. He has also been faced with hundreds of allegations of sexual assault, and has been recorded saying many mysoginistic comments about women.
He denies global warming, and has done nothing to "Make America Great Again".

joecavalry · July 2018

Donald Trump is a good president. He led the passage of the tax reform bill in 2017, cut regulations, boosted the economy, etc.

YeshuaRedeemed · July 2018

He has his good points but is weak on healthcare which is a right to live issue.

WordsMatter · July 2018

joecavalry said:

Donald Trump is a good president. He led the passage of the tax reform bill in 2017, cut regulations, boosted the economy, etc.

Please elaborate on that etc. One achievement (almost entirely created by Congress with almost no guidance from Trump) does not make a good president.

MayCaesar · July 2018

He is... okay. He is an extremely simple and ignorant person, knowing very little about the world beyond his business field and popular culture. Luckily, this leads to him barely doing anything, as opposed to trying different things and damaging the country. He is a classic example of a showman becoming a politician: he keeps doing the same thing as he did before his presidency - putting himself out there and bathing in people's reactions, both positive and negative - but aside from this acting and attention hunting, he does not seem to be intending to do anything meaningful.

It is a bit painful to see this disgrace in the White House, compared to Ronald Reagan, who also came from the popular culture, but who, unlike Trump, did his homework, educated himself about the political matters - and proceeded to be one of the most influential American presidents in history, contributing significantly to reunification of Germany and, in general, the resolution of the Cold War. Trump, of course, will never accomplish anything this extraordinary, and even his attempts to subdue one single miserable country-outcast do not seem to be going anywhere.

However, as a businessman, he (aside from his protectionist views on the international trade) recognizes the importance of the domestic free market and of the small government. Economy is what everything is built upon, and if the economy is doing well, then everything else will not crumble either. He should have done much more, given how much he boasted about his energy and potency throughout the election cycle - but I will take what I can get, especially since I expected even less from him.

CYDdharta · July 2018

Trump is a great president if for no other reason than he puts America first. This is something we haven't seen in decades, not since America was the shining city on the hill.Trump truly believes in America and is trying to get us back to our founding principles. This is why he is hated so much by the global elitists that have taken control of both parties and many of our most influential institutions, the mass media, education, tech, etc.

YeshuaRedeemed · July 2018

@CYDdharta You made a valid point in that both parties are controlled. I am a centrist.

MayCaesar · July 2018

@CYDdharta

Trump does not put America first, he puts himself first. He does want America to succeed, of course, especially since the success of his businesses depends directly on the success of America - but he does not understand what makes America what it is. This is a country of freedom and liberty, it has always stayed ahead of the world due to its principles of individual freedom and free market. Trump has taken a stance against both, encroaching on people's freedoms to move between countries and freedom to trade with other countries.

It is puzzling to me how his supporters do not see how protectionism and isolationism contradict what the Founding Fathers stood for. Protectionism and isolationism in Europe was one of the main reasons Founding Fathers constructed the system the way they did, hoping that strong decentralization and open borders would win over oppressive traditionalist European politics.

It is okay to like protectionism, isolationism and nationalism - but I fail to see what classifying these as our "founding principles" achieves, when they are nothing but. Contrary to the popular image, America is not a rural redneck with a farm who knows nothing about beyond his farm and is afraid of the competition - America is an elderly intellectual who writes complex philosophical books in order to solve the contradiction between the governors' tendency to suppress freedoms and the people's tendency to need both freedoms and governors. Because real state building is that difficult and complicated. It is not done through cheap "Build the wall!" slogans. The amount of effort put into a state development usually is proportional to the resulting quality of that development.

CYDdharta · July 2018

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

Trump does not put America first, he puts himself first. He does want America to succeed, of course, especially since the success of his businesses depends directly on the success of America - but he does not understand what makes America what it is. This is a country of freedom and liberty, it has always stayed ahead of the world due to its principles of individual freedom and free market. Trump has taken a stance against both, encroaching on people's freedoms to move between countries and freedom to trade with other countries.

It is puzzling to me how his supporters do not see how protectionism and isolationism contradict what the Founding Fathers stood for. Protectionism and isolationism in Europe was one of the main reasons Founding Fathers constructed the system the way they did, hoping that strong decentralization and open borders would win over oppressive traditionalist European politics.

It is okay to like protectionism, isolationism and nationalism - but I fail to see what classifying these as our "founding principles" achieves, when they are nothing but. Contrary to the popular image, America is not a rural redneck with a farm who knows nothing about beyond his farm and is afraid of the competition - America is an elderly intellectual who writes complex philosophical books in order to solve the contradiction between the governors' tendency to suppress freedoms and the people's tendency to need both freedoms and governors. Because real state building is that difficult and complicated. It is not done through cheap "Build the wall!" slogans. The amount of effort put into a state development usually is proportional to the resulting quality of that development.

It's been so long since we've had a president that was guided by our nation's founding principles that people don't even know what they are anymore. For instance, take your reply; it's hard to argue that the US was NOT founded on protectionism and isolationism when tariffs were the main source of revenue for the federal government from the time the Constitution was ratified until the start of WWI and that George Washington himself disbanded the US Army in favor of defense by states' militias. Be that as it may, fighting for better trade deals, as Trump is doing, is neither; it is putting America first. America was NOT founded to increase European and Asian trade at the expense of American of the American economy. You will NOT find that anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, you won't even find it in the Articles of Confederation. That isn't the formula for a successful nation, it's the formula for the death of a nation.

Marcus_Antonius · July 2018

Although irrelevant to the issue being discussed, I should like to challenge @MayCaesar on his claims regarding American isolationism and protectionism and his amalgamating of liberty and freedom of movement within this country. Although I do not regard Trump's tariff's to be beneficial for the country (As I see it as a blatant and poor attempt at isolating the United States within a Globalized Economy), I cannot but disagree with isolationism and protectionism being "Unamerican" in any sense. In fact, these two policies are more in-tune with the founding principles of the United States than their alternative options.

Isolationism
Isolationism is defined as: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

Although uncommon in terms of post-World War 1 United States, The Founding Fathers along with many influential personnel during the late 18th century had almost no intention nor an incentive to have any interference in international affairs. George Washington stated: "Our detached and distant situation enables us to pursue a different course (or History of our own)". Thomas Jefferson further emphasized the need for the United States to "Avoid entangling alliances"
In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams explicitly stated: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy"

It was not until the intervention in Cuba during the Spanish-American War of 1898 that Isolation ended, as America attempted to suppress a revolt within its neighboring island.

Protectionism
Protectionism is defined as: The theory or practice of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.

During the days of the Founding Fathers, The United States sought out to implement immense tariffs in an attempt at industrializing the nation rapidly. In just 3 years from 1789 - 1792, 3 tariffs were implemented (Hamilton Tariff of 1789, Hamilton Tariff of 1790, and the Hamilton Tariff of 1792) The Act Laying Duties on Imports passed to Congress saw the increasing of the rate of tariffs by 7-10%. I should also like to note that 3 tariffs in 3 years is extreme under todays circumstance.

I should like to further stress that the tariff rates within the United States were much higher than the tariff's of today. This shall be demonstrated via a graph from the early 19th century to today depicting the tariff rates within the United States, France and the UK:

Another Graph depicting the Tariff Rates of the United States:

To conclude, although I do not agree with Trump's Tariff proposal, to state that they are 'Unamerican' as if they are uncommon in presence throughout the United States' history, is a ludicrous statement altogether. And in regards to your statement about immigration, the United States had opened borders through out its entire history up until World War 2 due to an ever changing World. Ronald Reagan, one of the most accurate representations of the Post World War 2 Modern American Politician stated: "A Nation without borders is no nation at all" implying the need for us to draw the lines to our border, and protect them.

I hope this reply changes your mind regarding the subject at hand.

WordsMatter · July 2018

@Marcus_Antonius Is something made "American" just because it has a long history here, or even more importantly, because the founding fathers embraced it? If that was then racism should be labled as "American" as it meets all the criteria even stronger than isolationism and protectionism. I think it can be argued either way whether racism is "American" or not. I think the biggest issue here is that "American" is being used as a buzz word with no clear criteria to determine what is or isn't "American."

Marcus_Antonius · July 2018

@WordsMatter Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, for you have not completely understood my original rebuttal. In no way was I justifying the polices enacted by the founding fathers, and by no means should things remain unchanged in the case of both unregulated immigration and slavery. The point of my previous comment was to refute @MayCaesar claim that isolationism and protectionism were never the intentions of the founding fathers to establish, to which he was wrong.

I was not making a case for either one of these policies, I was merely refuting his claim on the basis that it was historically inaccurate. It is not to say that I would blindly follow the intentions of the founding fathers without good reason to follow them.

Seeing as I have hopefully helped you understand, I wish for us to stay on the original topic of discussion despite me getting slightly sidetracked with MayCaesar to clear up historical inaccuracies.

Polaris95 · July 2018

@CYDdharta
The world has changed drastically since the Constitution was written, and one of the big changes was globalization. Most people understand that it should be "The world first" instead of "America first". America is a global superpower, anything it does can affect the world as a whole. Trump's climate change policies, especially America's removal from the Paris Agreement, have hindered the world's chances of combatting global warming. Not only did Trump put America first here, he forgot about the Earth entirely.

MayCaesar · July 2018

@Marcus_Antonius ;

As @WordsMatter reasonably pointed, the basis of calling something "American" can be somewhat subjective. I see that you define "American" as something that has been an inherent part of the American history, and you call something a "founding principle" based on what the Founding Fathers directly said about it.

I define it differently. I call something "American" when it is based on the ideological reasoning which established the independent nation - and which, in my opinion, will always be relevant, as this reasoning is universal and applicable to every situation. It is not uncommon for nations, and even for their founders, to act differently from the ideology they promote - but it does not change what that ideology initially stood for.

I see "American" principles as those of individual freedom and liberty. The US has always differed from the majority of the rest of the world by it putting the individual freedoms and interests above the "collective good", which has been seen as a ghost, as something that serves merely to justify authoritarian measures taken in order to control the population - or, at least, unintentionally resulting in control over the population. The Founding Fathers coined these principles in their immortal words:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” - Thomas Paine

These are the ideals I see when I call something "American": letting people live their lives freely, without being controlled by the strong centralized government. This obviously includes the ability to trade freely with foreigners, and to invite a foreigner onto your land. The tariffs strike at the former, and the strong anti-immigration laws strike at the latter. They especially strike at this eternal ideal that has historically met all immigrants:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. To spread the light of liberty world-wide for every land."

If this is not an American ideal, then what is? There is nothing less American than saying "If you want to buy this European car, you have to pay 30% more to transport it to your land", or "If you want to hire this Iranian lawyer, you are out of luck, because he is prohibited from entering the country".

In my eyes, Trump's policies are not much closer to the American values than Sanders' policies. Both are too afraid of freedom and too in favor of imaginary security over it, to put them anywhere near the Founding Fathers who risked their lives in a very difficult war and who won against all odds - these two are merely boosting their ratings by appealing to populist ideas. Populism, something the Founding Fathers warned against, predicting that it could be the biggest threat to the Republic.

MayCaesar · July 2018

@CYDdharta

Could you explain how limiting the foreign trade and, hence, the diversity and amount of goods available to the American citizens - puts America first? And how it benefits anyone, other than the domestic businesses - that can now charge more for their goods and that now loose all incentive to improve the quality of those goods, due to the lack of foreign competition?

The core of the idea of the free market is that competition is the main incentive for economical growth. Limiting this competition, in my eyes, is very anti-capitalist. I am curious how you would interpret this in a way to arrive to the opposite conclusion.

Marcus_Antonius · July 2018

@MayCaeser ;

I must admit, your argument baffles me. Not in a way that is to be proud of, but rather, you seem to have completely disregarded what I have written previously while continued to obfuscate the values you have listed.

I should like to begin by clarifying what you seem to have misunderstood. I am in no way insinuating that tariff's are a part of these 'American values' that you so often bring up. I believe this is where you have confused me. You seem to assume that my intention here is to advocate in favor of the premise that tariff's are a fundamental part of the United States and that it is something that is intrinsically bonded to the American way of life. It is not. My previous comment was merely a rebuttal to your claim that the principles of the Founding Fathers (The god-given and inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not coincide with the need for "economic and social globalization"

You are correct in saying that implementing liberty and freedom by limiting the power of a centralized government was the objective set out by the founding fathers in 1791, however in no way did the founding fathers explicitly state the need for a "Globalized economy" or "Unregulated Immigration" as you have proposed. The rights of man does not coincide with these two principles as you have made the claim. I thereby refuted, claiming that if the founding fathers did want a globalized economy, there would not have been the implementation of 3 different tariff's from 1789 to 1792, while having the highest tariff rates in US history (See graph displayed above). This was the point of my previous comment.

To continue with this, I should like to refer you to the quotes that you have provided and my previous comment:
Here you provide quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” - Thomas Paine

The problem here is that these quotes do not evidence your point. They all explicitly call for the need for individual freedom and liberty, but at no point do any of these touch upon the need for an unregulated border or globalized economy. You then quote American Poet Emma Lazarus' 'The New Colossus' as a means of proving that the United States' founding principles are unregulated immigration. But the poem for which you refer to was not displayed into the Statue of Liberty until 1903, over 100 after the founding fathers were at their most prolific stages. I myself do not disagree with the fact that the United States had open borders, however, like I said before, after World War 2, there began a growing concern with the ways by which the United States handled its borders.

I understand where the disagreement has stemmed from. You claim that the Founding Fathers fought for liberty, equality, freedom from a tyrannical government. I do not disagree once more. Where we do disagree however is your attempts at trying to fit freedom to trade internationally and freedom of movement with the freedom's entailed by the founding fathers. I fail to find any evidence of these two "forms of freedoms" within the Constitution, understandably because they were never part of "American values".

Regarding your inquiries, To define American values is a daunting task in of itself. For me, these "American values" are present within the first 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights. (Not to say that any of the other Amendments are to be ignored in any way)

WordsMatter · July 2018

@Marcus_Antonius I don't think it's fair for either side, pro or con, to try and interpret the views of the founding fathers on a globalized economy. The world they lived in was vastly different from that of the present day. During the founding fathers time they didn't have the same information that we do today, that tariffs can lead to war and hurt economies. For a young developing country tariffs are a given. You need to protect a country that is essentially a baby so that it can develop economically.

Personally I think globalizing the American evening to the degree that we did previously was a mistake. However, I think trying to undo that now would just be another mistake.

On immigration, the founding fathers were perfectly happy to bring foreigners into this country against their will. Aside from Thomas Jefferson who, in " letters on the state of Virginia" said that having black people in the US would be it's demise. So even founding fathers views on border protection is from a drastically different set of circumstances than that of today.

MayCaesar · July 2018

@Marcus_Antonius

Well, to understand my point, you have to take a step further and to ask yourself: "What is freedom and liberty truly is?" Freedom from whom? Liberty to do what? To me, it is pretty clear that the Founding Fathers talked about the freedom from the governmental oppression, liberty to pursue individual goals and dreams against any obstacles the society could theoretically put in one's way.

Freedom to trade with other nations and to accept immigrants from other nations are obviously a part of it. If you are not allowed to trade with, say, a Chinese company freely, then your freedom is being restricted by the government. If you are not allowed to hire an employee from India because of the travel ban, then your freedom is being restricted by the government. Freedom does not only apply to the domestic policies; freedom is freedom, it is a general concept that applies regardless of the details of the subject we are talking about. While one can argue that the Founding Fathers only had specific freedoms in mind, I see their ideology as something more, as a philosophy that advocates for individualist chaos over collectivist order.

I am not sure why you keep equaling free trade and light immigration policies with globalization and open borders. While globalization is definitely healthy for any economy, and open borders are a good ideal to aim for long-term - free trade and abundant immigration are not directly related to these terms. Free trade is about economical freedom of the domestic citizens, and immigration policies also significantly affect the free market. I want to emphasize it once more: these policies are not just about how we treat the outside world - they are also about what freedoms we, American residents, have. Regardless of whether Trump's policies benefit the economy or not, I do see them as contrary to the values this country was founded for, for the reasons stated above.

MayCaesar · July 2018

@WordsMatter

I would also say that tariffs had different effects at the time of Founding Fathers, than they do today. At the time when the new, fresh, rapidly developing country was a juicy fruit for investments, tariffs were a good way for the internal economy to benefit additionally from those investments - and the outside investors still saw investing as a good deal, because, even despite the increased cost of investments due to the tariffs, the eventual return from those investments was very high.

Nowadays, the benefits are much harder to ripe, as the US is not such an attractive investment market any more (compared to many developing economies offering investment incentives such as tax exempts and subsidies for foreign investors), tariffs will probably simply reduce the amount of trade, rather than increase the gain from trade. I suppose they can force certain companies to move production into the US (as, for example, many car manufacturers did as a response to the car tariffs introduced a long time ago), adding jobs, which is probably what Trump is trying to accomplish. I am strongly skeptical that this will work, but it might in theory.

CYDdharta · July 2018

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

Could you explain how limiting the foreign trade and, hence, the diversity and amount of goods available to the American citizens - puts America first? And how it benefits anyone, other than the domestic businesses - that can now charge more for their goods and that now loose all incentive to improve the quality of those goods, due to the lack of foreign competition?

The core of the idea of the free market is that competition is the main incentive for economical growth. Limiting this competition, in my eyes, is very anti-capitalist. I am curious how you would interpret this in a way to arrive to the opposite conclusion.

It's simply a tactic to renegotiate poor trade deals and transgressions. As has been illustrated elsewhere in this thread, tariffs are still historically low. Do you believe American workers are treated better by their employers today than they were in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s when tariffs were 5 times higher? Those "high" tariffs certainly didn't keep the US from finding new markets around the world.

Can you explain how allowing industrial theft, patent infringement, and currency manipulation puts America first?

MayCaesar · July 2018

CYDdharta said:

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

Could you explain how limiting the foreign trade and, hence, the diversity and amount of goods available to the American citizens - puts America first? And how it benefits anyone, other than the domestic businesses - that can now charge more for their goods and that now loose all incentive to improve the quality of those goods, due to the lack of foreign competition?

The core of the idea of the free market is that competition is the main incentive for economical growth. Limiting this competition, in my eyes, is very anti-capitalist. I am curious how you would interpret this in a way to arrive to the opposite conclusion.

It's simply a tactic to renegotiate poor trade deals and transgressions. As has been illustrated elsewhere in this thread, tariffs are still historically low. Do you believe American workers are treated better by their employers today than they were in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s when tariffs were 5 times higher? Those "high" tariffs certainly didn't keep the US from finding new markets around the world.

Can you explain how allowing industrial theft, patent infringement, and currency manipulation puts America first?

Very well, then I have to ask: what, in your opinion, makes a given trade deal "poor"? "Poor" for whom: for the American government, for the American consumers, for the American companies? And "poor" in what regard financially?

I am not disagreeing that tariffs are near their lowest historically. I do disagree, however, that them being historically lowest makes it reasonable to increase them. Times change, and practices that worked 300 years ago do not necessarily work today.

I do not know how American workers were treated decades ago, since I did not work in America at that time. I assume they were treated worse than nowadays, given how hard it was to make poor worker treatment public - compared to the age of the social media we live in - but otherwise, I am not very well familiar with the worker rights at that time.

I never said that allowing industrial theft, patent infringement and currency manipulation puts America first. And I do not think that the existence of certain questionable practices makes it reasonable to employ one more questionable practice.

Marcus_Antonius · July 2018

@MayCaesar Again you've convoluted the terms of freedom to fit the narrative that you are attempting to bring about. You've repeated what the founding fathers intended to be free from an ever growing government, the liberty to pursue ones own dreams despite the obstacles that society before you (As a law abiding citizen). Once more, I shall reiterate, I do not disagree with you under those terms. However I do disagree with you here, as you are mistaken with the intentions of the founding fathers:

"Freedom to trade with other nations and to accept immigrants from other nations are obviously a part of it"

Except it's not obvious, and it's not a part of it. I find myself continuously referring you to my previous comment: If one wants to know the intentions of the Founding Fathers and which freedoms were to be implemented, then read the first 10 amendments of the Constitutional Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers never had "Freedom to trade freely without Tariff's" in the document due to the fact that it is much too specific of a statement and that it does not fall under any of the intentions or motives of the founding fathers. And this statement can be proven by (Once more) assessing which tariff's were implemented during the late 18th and early 19th century at which rates. If the founding fathers had any intentions on "obviously" ridding us of tariff's for trading freely internationally, then:
a) We would have not had such tariff's at such high rates during the years of the Founding Fathers.
b) Such a clause would have been implemented within the document

The same argument as such can and should be made for immigration. You criticize my understanding for free trade in respect to it's implications on the citizen and the country. The tariff's implemented by Donald Trump, although I do not agree with them, are not contrary to the "freedoms of the people", as you have continuously tried to argue.

You cannot take the fundamental aspect of what the Founding Fathers had intended to bring about within the United States, and apply it to every policy which you deem necessary. I cannot implement the "Rights of Man" and the "Freedom to Pursue Happiness" to any economic policy for which I disagree with. I have found myself in a position in which I am continuously trying to inform you on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, we should end this bickering and lead the rest of these people on a course to discuss whether Donald Trump is a good president rather than whether the Founding Fathers intended for Freedom of international movement and international trade.

Oh, and just a quick side note: India are not a part of the Travel Ban (Executive Order 13769)

Marcus_Antonius · July 2018

@WordsMatter ;

I do not disagree with you. The nature of Migration and Tariff's were present during a time in which social and economic norms were vastly different from our own today. Upon saying this however, we can clearly assess however the primal objectives of the founding fathers by reading (Once more) The Constitution (Or rather, the first 10 Amendments)

Although times change dramatically, there were some aspects of that they intended to maintain. Unfortunately, I found myself disagreeing with @MayCaesar regarding his claims that Trump's tariff proposal was against the will of 'American Values' (What the founding fathers intended) as if somehow it contradicted the freedoms that they set out to ensure every American had. I disagreed with this, saying that the freedoms of the 10 amendments had absolutely nothing to do with tariff's and immigration.

I am not saying that these tariff's are 'American' or 'UnAmerican', rather merely disagreeing with the notion that somehow limiting international trade and international migration was against the principles written up by the Founding Fathers. Hence, why I have heavily criticized MayCaesar for convoluting the freedoms intended by the Founding Fathers and the "Freedom to trade freely Internationally" or the "Freedom to enter a country unregulated"

MayCaesar · July 2018

@Marcus_Antonius

My position is not that the Founding Fathers supported free trade and lax immigration laws, but that their general ideology had free trade and lax immigration laws as a consequence of it - the consequence they themselves at the time did not realize fully, because the times were different and different conclusions were derived from the same ideologies, based on people being less/differently informed about various subjects.

Freedom is freedom. One does not have to list all 5467834553 possible freedoms in order to promote them, one has to only say that they promote freedom and liberty - and that morally binds them to defending freedom and liberty in all of their manifestations, as long as they are in line with the ideology they are derived from.

It is not very uncommon for people to not follow their own ideology to its logical conclusion. Founding Fathers talked a lot about individual freedom and liberty, but, for example, saw nothing wrong with slavery. Nowadays, when we are past that prejudice, we see slavery as strongly contradictory to the idea of individual freedom and liberty. I see free trade and open immigration as similar to prohibition of slavery in this regard.

George_Horse · July 2018

Polaris95 said:

No, not at all. Marcus_Antonius already said, he is just dividing America more and more, polarising the entire country. In his tweets he shows a level of maturity comparable to that of an 8-year old child. He's ruptured all the good relations the US has had with other countries. He, for no reason aside from his own homophobia, banned transgender people from the military, wanted to build a "huuuge" wall between the US and Mexico and stupidly left the Iran deal.
On another note, he has also failed in achieving most of his promises to his voters. He has also been faced with hundreds of allegations of sexual assault, and has been recorded saying many mysoginistic comments about women.
He denies global warming, and has done nothing to "Make America Great Again".

Banning transgenders because them wanting hormonal surgeries to be done on them, and problems that would be faced in the military community. [1]

"He has also been faced with hundreds of allegations of sexual assault"

Allegations, not facts.

"and has been recorded saying many mysoginistic comments about women."

Spelled "misogynistic" incorrectly, also he has apologized for his immature statements.

Any other claims that you could continue to provide?

Zombieguy1987 · July 2018

@George_Horse I agree with you. a lot of the negative stuff that is reported is by left wing news, so should we really be surprised about a lot of these claims. Also this whole he's a racist, homophobic, sexist stuff needs to stop. He helped Jews and Blacks into golf courses in West Palm Beach, yet you never hear that from the left, who denies he did that. http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/donald-trump-fought-antisemitism-racism-palm-beach-two-decades-ago/

with_all_humility · July 2018

@YeshuaBought

Where do you get this "right to live" equates to "free healthcare" or "government subsidized healthcare" being a constitutionally protected right? If "healthcare" was a right, it would have been added as an article in the bill of rights years ago.

YeshuaRedeemed · July 2018

@with_all_humility I have the right to live. This is my body. Go read Matthew 25:1-13 if you really are a Christian. I will die without healthcare, I have preexisting conditions, and can't afford to pay. I have the same right to live as anyone else.

YeshuaRedeemed · July 2018

@with_all_humility The Constitution is a faulty document. We get our rights from GOD.

Zombieguy1987 · July 2018

@YeshuaBought Right, because we should rely on a book that supports these things here
So Christians whos worse God or Hitler

Yeah, this is why no one in the whole universe could convince me , even with evidence to be religious. and by the way. Yeshua, you've said atheists were immoral, but, it seem you're in the wrong... again *yawn*

MayCaesar · July 2018

@YeshuaBought

Having the right to live means that no one has the right to commit actions that result in your death. It does not mean that people or the government have the obligation to spend their resources on trying to save you from death that your own actions or state of existence brings in. Having a right for something does not mean being guaranteed that something. For example, you have the right for free speech, but if you are mute by nature, then nobody owes you a free operation to "unmute" you so you can exercise that right.

And you do not get your rights from the god. You get them from the law, regardless of your beliefs. If your god says that you deserve a free helicopter, and the law says that you do not, then you will not receive it.

Nathaniel_B · August 2018

Marcus_Antonius said:

@Marcus_Antonius

I concur with much of what you said, it is rather difficult to assess the successes and failures of a President who has held such a position for less than 2 years, seeing as decisions take months, if not years to have a significant effect on the country. However, I disagree with your statement regarding his "absent" presidency. I believe there have been multiple decisions, executive orders and legislative actions under his presidency which have proved important.

Following Donald Trump's presidency, The Corporate Tax Rate had been reduced to it's lowest amount since 1940. A reduction of the Personal Income Tax Rate and Social Security Tax Rate followed. I don't think you could make the claim however that it was solely Congress who forged the bill while Trump "simply signed it". Be that as it may, Donald Trump called for a reduction of taxes prior to his presidency during the election campaign. Furthermore, one could make the same argument regarding the presidents relationship with Congress during the entirety of the United States' history. Is it a fair assessment to give credit for the 1962 Personal Income tax reduction to Congress and not Kennedy? Or the Same Sex Marriage Bill passed in 2015? Of course, to give absolute credit to the president is to assume that the presidency holds absolute power, which is simply untrue, which thereby causes a commonly made confusion.

Another success on President Trump's behalf was his efforts made diplomatically to bring North Korea to the agreement table, which proved successful in resolving hostilities between the 3 Nations, however nothing has come about as of yet. (One cannot disregard his efforts seeing as South Korean President Moon praised him for the contribution Donald Trump has made) Of course, as said previously, I am skeptical on whether or not these talks will prove successful, regardless they have shown to being significant.

What I have written thus far has demonstrated that the decisions that Mr. Trump has made as of today have been significant, and contradict your statement regarding his "absent" presidency. However this debate is oriented towards whether Donald Trump's presidency has been "good" (which leads me back to my original concern with the topic question, but I shall assume "good" is in comparison to the presidents of the 21st century, and it shall focus on his ability to uphold his policies and whether those policies proved beneficial) *Italicized due to inability to fully asses short term programs*

To Thesis my argument, I shall make the claim that Donald Trump has played a significant role thus far, a role in which cannot be fully assessed due to his short span in office. I shall dictate his presidency based off of what he has promised, and the effects of those promises (From what we can see)

In terms of the successes that have occurred under Trump's presidency, there have been multiple. As said previously, taxes have been reduced (both income and corporate). Facts from January 1st, 2018 indicate that over 1.8 million jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is at 3.8% (Lowest it has been since 1999) Corporate profits have increased by 10.1%, and the black unemployment rate is the lowest it has been for over 30 years. Although these numbers indicate his presidency has been economically successful, the implementation of international tariffs has proved unpopular amongst many economists. Furthermore, these successes cannot only be attributed to Trump's presidency (although one could make such an argument) as all of these indications have become present during the latter years of the Obama administration. Moreover, I should like to contrast: Good President and Good Presidency. Although Trump's presidency could be "good", I would not regard him as a "Good President"

This is evidenced by the foul language used by The President of the United States. I do not believe Donald Trump is intellectually superior to his predecessors, nor do I believe him to be a very likable and Charismatic man (Subjective and Anecdotal opinion, but heavily backed up by instances of insanity.) His tweets have done more harm in polarizing an already polarized nation (Very much due to the domestic failures of Bush and the Societal failures of Obama) than they have mended the wounds. Granted the Media have not made it easier for Donald Trump, but his actions have proved to be a failure as of thus far.

To conclude, although i've only provided a surface level of information regarding Trump's presidency within this comment, I believe that he has played a significant role in numerous domestic and diplomatic failures and successes. Not to say that he is a "good president", but rather an important one.

Yo you just replied to yourself.

John_C_87 · August 2018

No Mr. Trump Does not represent all men in a united State before the American United States Constitution. He has not represented all people in a United State before the American United States Constitution either. This fact does not however in any way take away from his abilities to act as executive officer of the Executive Branch of Government. My

A first Concern of United State as President might be how woman are United Under crime as a justification to publicly plagiarize and accusation by discrimination allegations for rewriting of legal precedent on the word President of the United States.

A First Concern of a United State as Executive officer before the United States Constitution might be to provide a single United State between all woman that is free of plagiarizing and restriction created by legal precedent already in place. The example given would be Prasedera or Madam Prasedera as this places all woman in a united group to address a union in constitutional principle equally.

All woman are created equal by their creator.

beckysmith · August 2018

joecavalry said:

Donald Trump is a good president. He led the passage of the tax reform bill in 2017, cut regulations, boosted the economy, etc.

He has good intensions, but it will not benefit the American people. Any business person understands the main rules: Trust no one, every man for himself. I know this because I do business. Tax reform helps only the rich. If you watch the presidential debate Trump openly admits multiple times to have not paid any income taxes for years. I do appreciate his honesty. The tax reform will put a LOT more money into his pockets. As for the people of the middle class? He is betting that by putting more money into businesses, they will spend more and more money as a result will end up into employee and middle class's pockets. Companies like Apple, Exxon mobile, and Walmart have access to capital that some countries only dream of. Before the tax reform why weren't they giving employees bonuses or investing more? Let me ask you this, do you donate any of your money now? If you had a million dollars how much would you donate? If you made a million dollars a year, and the next year you made 2 million dollars, how much would you be donating now? This goes back to my first point. The harsh truth is, people in business are selfish. I am guilty of this too. It's not necessarily a bad thing because the more money you have, the more money you can make. If you have $1 Million wouldn't you love to have $100 Million? This happens through compounding and leverage.

These economic booms we are seeing currently, we will pay for it later on. Stocks and the economy can only grow so much, but if productivity and assets don't grow just as fast, this is exactly how INFLATION is caused. Trump is a ruthless (and pretty good) business man who became wealthy from loan leverage and he's trying to do the same to the U.S., however the U.S. can't afford to stack up even more debt. Not to mention, he is causing tension between the U.S. and other countries and because of that the dollar will tank, and there will be inflation down the line and possibly a recession (knock on wood). When you see this in the news, remember who you heard it from first.

beckysmith · August 2018

George_Horse said:

Polaris95 said:

No, not at all. Marcus_Antonius already said, he is just dividing America more and more, polarising the entire country. In his tweets he shows a level of maturity comparable to that of an 8-year old child. He's ruptured all the good relations the US has had with other countries. He, for no reason aside from his own homophobia, banned transgender people from the military, wanted to build a "huuuge" wall between the US and Mexico and stupidly left the Iran deal.
On another note, he has also failed in achieving most of his promises to his voters. He has also been faced with hundreds of allegations of sexual assault, and has been recorded saying many mysoginistic comments about women.
He denies global warming, and has done nothing to "Make America Great Again".

Banning transgenders because them wanting hormonal surgeries to be done on them, and problems that would be faced in the military community. [1]

"He has also been faced with hundreds of allegations of sexual assault"

Allegations, not facts.

"and has been recorded saying many mysoginistic comments about women."

Spelled "misogynistic" incorrectly, also he has apologized for his immature statements.

Any other claims that you could continue to provide?

So, you don't think it is a big deal that he wants to sleep with his daughter, that he is separating our nation through sports, that he's immature and reckless on twitter including almost starting a war with North Korea, that he comments things like "laziness is a trait in blacks", "Mexican immigrants are criminals and racist", "immigrants from Haiti all have AIDS", that he thinks white supremacists are "very fine people", that the leader of the KKK endorses him, and your fine with him saying " grabbing women by the " and states that “when you’re a star, they let you do it”? List goes on man.

George_Horse · September 2018

beckysmith said:

George_Horse said:

Polaris95 said:

No, not at all. Marcus_Antonius already said, he is just dividing America more and more, polarising the entire country. In his tweets he shows a level of maturity comparable to that of an 8-year old child. He's ruptured all the good relations the US has had with other countries. He, for no reason aside from his own homophobia, banned transgender people from the military, wanted to build a "huuuge" wall between the US and Mexico and stupidly left the Iran deal.
On another note, he has also failed in achieving most of his promises to his voters. He has also been faced with hundreds of allegations of sexual assault, and has been recorded saying many mysoginistic comments about women.
He denies global warming, and has done nothing to "Make America Great Again".

Banning transgenders because them wanting hormonal surgeries to be done on them, and problems that would be faced in the military community. [1]

"He has also been faced with hundreds of allegations of sexual assault"

Allegations, not facts.

"and has been recorded saying many mysoginistic comments about women."

Spelled "misogynistic" incorrectly, also he has apologized for his immature statements.

Any other claims that you could continue to provide?

So, you don't think it is a big deal that he wants to sleep with his daughter, that he is separating our nation through sports, that he's immature and reckless on twitter including almost starting a war with North Korea, that he comments things like "laziness is a trait in blacks", "Mexican immigrants are criminals and racist", "immigrants from Haiti all have AIDS", that he thinks white supremacists are "very fine people", that the leader of the KKK endorses him, and your fine with him saying " grabbing women by the " and states that “when you’re a star, they let you do it”? List goes on man.

Oh boy. I'm going to have to see some sources on those claims, so I could do you like I did Polaris95. As a matter of fact, let me take a nip.

"So, you don't think it is a big deal that he wants to sleep with his daughter"

When did he say this? And has this been verified?

"he is separating our nation through sports"

Not him. Just fools like Krapernick and Lebron.

"he comments things like "laziness is a trait in blacks"

And snopes said for that one that the claim is "mixed" Not particularly true or false.

"Mexican immigrants are criminals and racist"

As if this isn't obvious enough that this had already been debunked. He ACTUALLY said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Hmmmmmmmm, why didn't you mention the part that I placed in bold?

"immigrants from Haiti all have AIDS"

Another claim that has NOT been verified to be true.

"that he thinks white supremacists are "very fine people"

Oh man, I'm getting tired already.

"and your fine with him saying " grabbing women by the "

What's the problem? Did you have difficulty finishing the last part of the quote? And for this final point, guess what? He did what? .........He apologized! What? I can't believe that! Yes the man apologized for his remarks, he was a celebrity and celebrities are often known for lewd or bad comments, but he apologized and that is what truly mattered. Wouldn't it be bad if he had not? What if Obama said something similar before running for president? And what about Hillary's "superpredator" comments directed towards young black men? She never apologized, and you're not mad? And guess what? It's been verified by politifact to be true! Oh man! Oh but don't fret, I guess its nothing to worry about!

MayCaesar · September 2018

I am not sure why people criticizing him are usually mainly interested in his sex scandals, the Russian conspiracy, his remarks about his daughter, etc. These are not things that define him. Let him live his private life however he wants, and let the official investigation decide what in common he has with Putin.

What defines him is that, plainly speaking, he is intellectually a very deficient person. He can rarely put a few words together in a way that makes any sense, and most of his political statements sound as naive as if a kindergarten child was making them. He does seem to have a knack for business, however, but that is a pretty specific set of skills that does not directly translate into economics or politics, and definitely does not translate into one's cognitive ability (or lack of thereof).

"Grab them by the P" is irrelevant. "I know words. I have the best words" is what is problematic. That the CEO of our country is a child in an adult's clothing is what is problematic. All those policies that have been outdated for more than a century now and that he is still pushing for (tariffs, immigration bans, press restrictions) - is the result of that extremely limited intellectual ability.

He would not be our president, if only people focused on what is important during the election season and not on what makes cool headlines. As it is, you did the best thing you can do for him - you created a show out of him - and that is one of the few fields where he excels due to his innate ability to entertain people.

He is not a bad guy overall. He is a funny old dude. He just does not have what it takes to meaningfully do politics. This is the aspect that should be emphasized, and not all those scandals that only give fire to his followers seeing everything as a conspiracy against him.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

How Trump's rhetoric has changed since 2016

In this Debate

Is Donald Trump a good president?
in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

How Trump's rhetoric has changed since 2016

In this Debate

Is Donald Trump a good president?in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Is Donald Trump a good president?
in Politics